Fr.Davide Pagliarani told Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishop Guido Pozzo that there were mistakes in Vatican Council II. I think they must acknowledge it.
There are precise mistakes.Objective mistakes which are are responsible for the bad philosophy and theology.
There are precise mistakes.Objective mistakes which are are responsible for the bad philosophy and theology.
Many of the Council Fathers, in principle, assumed hypothetical cases were non hypothetical.Non Catholics who are invisible were considered to be visible.Then around this error they created a new theology. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) was eliminated.Vatican Council II became dogmatic in a negative way, with new doctrines being created on salvation.It had its effect for example on ecumenism, mission, liturgy, morals and ecclesiology etc.
The mistake can be seen in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).Yet they are mentioned. BOD, BOB and I.I do not exist in our reality.There are no known cases of salvation outside the Church with or without BOD, BOB and I.I.They cannot be personally known to us.If they cannot be personally known then how can they be exceptions to EENS or the orthodox passages on salvation in AG 7 an LG 14 ?
But for the Council Fathers BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. This was their reasoning.
But for the Council Fathers BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. This was their reasoning.
Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr.Joseph Ratzinger, assumed they referred to known people saved outside the Church.Since only if they were known people they could become exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS.
Similarly along with other orthodox passages on salvation, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are mentioned. Why? Since the Council Fathers did not realize that these are just hypothetical cases,speculative with good will.
So now there are passages in the Council, which are for and against EENS, orthodox passages along with innovation based on a false premise, in a ding dong theology.
So now there are passages in the Council, which are for and against EENS, orthodox passages along with innovation based on a false premise, in a ding dong theology.
This is a specific error in Vatican Council II.It is there in the text and comes from the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Baltimore Catechism placed the unknown case of a hypothetical catechumen in the Baptism Section, as if it was aknown and visible baptism like the baptism of water.So when Catholics read Vatican Council II they interpret LG 8 etc as examples of known salvation outside the Catholic Church.
This error was maintained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.On March 1, 2018 Cardinal Ladaria repeated it at the Placuet Deo Press Conference.Then in March 2016 Pope Benedict in Avvenire , said EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.There was a development with Vatican Council II.
He meant that Vatican Council II says there is known salvation outside the Church( for him). LG 8, LG 15 etc are exceptions to EENS for him so he infers that there are known people saved outside the Church.This is a false reasoning.
He also questioned the need for mission, according to his interpretation of Vatican Council II. He cover up the error in the next.He never exposed it. Neither would he interpret the Council without the error.
He never considered hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II not being exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.He refused to announce that EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century is not contradicted by hypothetical cases mentioned in the Council. Possibilities of salvation are theoretical.
He did not say that there was an objective error in the text of the Council.He refused to say that we physically cannot see non Catholics in Heaven saved without faith and baptism.
In March 2016 he could have said that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.He said nothing on this point.
In March 2018 he could have announced that LG 8 was not an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS and so Cardinal Ladaria was wrong. He said nothing.
It was similar in 1949-1952 when Pope Pius XII could have said that the Holy Office 1949 was wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.He kept quiet.
So there is a specific mistake in Vatican Council II which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. So this aspect of the Council cannot be magisterial but is human error on doctrine and theology.
The SSPX shold be permitted to reject it.So mixing up hypothetical cases as being objective is a major mistake in Vatican Council II.The violats the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades
This error was maintained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.On March 1, 2018 Cardinal Ladaria repeated it at the Placuet Deo Press Conference.Then in March 2016 Pope Benedict in Avvenire , said EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.There was a development with Vatican Council II.
He meant that Vatican Council II says there is known salvation outside the Church( for him). LG 8, LG 15 etc are exceptions to EENS for him so he infers that there are known people saved outside the Church.This is a false reasoning.
He also questioned the need for mission, according to his interpretation of Vatican Council II. He cover up the error in the next.He never exposed it. Neither would he interpret the Council without the error.
He never considered hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II not being exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.He refused to announce that EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century is not contradicted by hypothetical cases mentioned in the Council. Possibilities of salvation are theoretical.
He did not say that there was an objective error in the text of the Council.He refused to say that we physically cannot see non Catholics in Heaven saved without faith and baptism.
In March 2016 he could have said that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.He said nothing on this point.
In March 2018 he could have announced that LG 8 was not an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS and so Cardinal Ladaria was wrong. He said nothing.
It was similar in 1949-1952 when Pope Pius XII could have said that the Holy Office 1949 was wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.He kept quiet.
So there is a specific mistake in Vatican Council II which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. So this aspect of the Council cannot be magisterial but is human error on doctrine and theology.
The SSPX shold be permitted to reject it.So mixing up hypothetical cases as being objective is a major mistake in Vatican Council II.The violats the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment