1.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) tellls us that all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.So when a Catholic says invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to EENS, it is heresy.He cannot physically see or meet non Catholics saved in I.I, BOD, BOB.If there are people saved as such they would only be known to God.So we cannot change the meaning of EENS by assuming there are exceptions.Practically there cannot be exceptions.Theoretical possibilities of salvation are not literal cases.There are no literal cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in 2019 but for most Catholics BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.
2.The popes and saints referred to BOD, BOB and I.I and knew they could be only hypothetical cases. So they were not exceptions to EENS for them.To re-interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to personally known people saved outside the Catholic Church is deceptive.To assume Mystici Corporis, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, Catechism of the Council of Trent etc, when they mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I, as referring to objective and literal exceptions to EENS, is a heretical reading of magisterial documents.
3.It is first class heresy to change the meaning of the Nicene Creed. We pray, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.One baptism refers to the baptism of water.We can only physically see and repeat the baptism of water. However for many Catholics there is not one but three known baptisms(BOD,BOD, I.I) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is heresy.Who among us can administer the other baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.
4.In the Apostles Creed we pray,' I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church'.For many Catholics the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to personally known people saved outside the Church. This is irrational.It is also heretical.How can we interpret the Apostles Creed and other Church documents with this irrationality and then consider the conclusion magisterial ?.
5.In Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases.They are not physically seen people saved outside the Church in 1965-2019.There are no such people who exist in our reality. To assume LG 8 etc are exceptions to EENS is heresy.
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology.While AG 7 and LG 14 support Feeneyite EENS.AG 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All - and not just those who know about Jesus and the Church.Those who are in invincible ignorance, through no fault of their own, are not exceptions to EENS.
Most Catholics heretically interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return etc).
6.Similarly when the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) refers to BOD, BOB and I.I it is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.While CCC 846 cites AG 7, which supports EENS.
So to re-interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in the Catechism, as being exceptions to EENS, since there are alleged known people saved outside the Church, is irrational and changes the interpretation of the Catechism. This is heresy.
The same mistake can be made in the interpretation of the the Catechisms of Pope Pius X and Trent.
7.The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX was a Magisterial document.We cannot reject it by assuming there are known exceptions to EENS and an ecumenism of return.There are no visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc.For Pope Benedict, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit and other ecclesiastics to consider the Syllabus of Errors as now being obsolete, because of known salvation outside the Church, is heresy.
8.The references to hypothetical cases in the Decree on Ecumenism in Vatican Council II (UR 3 etc) must not be seen as exceptions to EENS and an ecumenism of return.Since they cannot be practical exceptions. There is no other option.So Protestants must still return to the Catholic Church for salvation. Yet many Catholics interpret Unitatis Redintigratio as suggesting there is personally known salvation in other Christian religions.There is a rupture with EENS in UR 3.This is heretical.
There is no basis for the New Ecumenism in Vatican Council II.Other Christians, theologically, still need to come into the Catholic Church for salvation.
9. The Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and also the need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.Since invincible ignorance, for example, refers to only a hypothetical case, this Catechism only affirms the strict interpretation of EENS.However the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and the sedevacantists (CMRI,MHFM etc) interpret invincible ignorance as referring to personally known people.So they are exceptions to EENS.This is irrational and heretical.They have created the exceptions when this Catechism does not mention any.
10.The New Theology is based upon BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions to EENS( Letter of the Holy Office 1949).BOD, BOB and I.I, we now know, cannot be exceptions to EENS. So the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) was heretical.
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were written and approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger based on the heretical New Theology.The same mistake is there in two theological papers of the the International Theological Commission ( Christianity and the World Religions(1997) and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without being Baptised(2007) ).
Similarly the Balamand Declaration and the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans was based on the heretical New Theology.
Many of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted the New Theology.In principle hypothetical cases were assumed to be objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.So LG 14 indicates that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and who do not enter, go to Hell.It excludes those who are in invincible ignorance and are allegedly personally known.This is heresy and the reasoning is convoluted.
REINTERPRETATION
Since 'the red is not an exception to the blue' 1 we can read all Church documents in a rational and non heretical way, in spite of the mistakes of the past.
The popes and cardinals did not correct the error in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.It was the Holy Office (CDF) and the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing, who were in heresy and not Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So the first part of LOHO affirms the strict interpretation of EENS and the second part which mentions BOD, BOB and I.I does not conflict with it.
Similarly when the Catechisms and the popes and saints affirm the strict interpretation of EENS they are still Feeneyites.Since BOD, BOB and I.I which they mention, can never be exceptions to EENS.
Similarly Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are also Feeneyite, since the red passages do not contradict the blue.
So inspite of the New Theology, we can re-read Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus as being Feeneyite, with the red not being an exception to the blue.
So the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II is still the same.We are back to traditional Catholic mision- doctrine and theology.There is only an ecumenism of return and there is no rational theological basis for the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiolgy, New Theology etc.There were all based upon known salvation outside the Catholic Church.
So EENS today is the same as it was in the 16th century.Vatican Council II is no more a rupture with EENS.
The text of Vatican Council II is heretical though when it suggests BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7, LG 14) and that invincible ignorance refers to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church so only those who know about Jesus and the Church need to enter for salvation(LG 14).
-Lionel Andrades
2.The popes and saints referred to BOD, BOB and I.I and knew they could be only hypothetical cases. So they were not exceptions to EENS for them.To re-interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to personally known people saved outside the Catholic Church is deceptive.To assume Mystici Corporis, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, Catechism of the Council of Trent etc, when they mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I, as referring to objective and literal exceptions to EENS, is a heretical reading of magisterial documents.
3.It is first class heresy to change the meaning of the Nicene Creed. We pray, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.One baptism refers to the baptism of water.We can only physically see and repeat the baptism of water. However for many Catholics there is not one but three known baptisms(BOD,BOD, I.I) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is heresy.Who among us can administer the other baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.
4.In the Apostles Creed we pray,' I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church'.For many Catholics the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to personally known people saved outside the Church. This is irrational.It is also heretical.How can we interpret the Apostles Creed and other Church documents with this irrationality and then consider the conclusion magisterial ?.
5.In Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases.They are not physically seen people saved outside the Church in 1965-2019.There are no such people who exist in our reality. To assume LG 8 etc are exceptions to EENS is heresy.
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology.While AG 7 and LG 14 support Feeneyite EENS.AG 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All - and not just those who know about Jesus and the Church.Those who are in invincible ignorance, through no fault of their own, are not exceptions to EENS.
Most Catholics heretically interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return etc).
6.Similarly when the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) refers to BOD, BOB and I.I it is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.While CCC 846 cites AG 7, which supports EENS.
So to re-interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in the Catechism, as being exceptions to EENS, since there are alleged known people saved outside the Church, is irrational and changes the interpretation of the Catechism. This is heresy.
The same mistake can be made in the interpretation of the the Catechisms of Pope Pius X and Trent.
7.The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX was a Magisterial document.We cannot reject it by assuming there are known exceptions to EENS and an ecumenism of return.There are no visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc.For Pope Benedict, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit and other ecclesiastics to consider the Syllabus of Errors as now being obsolete, because of known salvation outside the Church, is heresy.
8.The references to hypothetical cases in the Decree on Ecumenism in Vatican Council II (UR 3 etc) must not be seen as exceptions to EENS and an ecumenism of return.Since they cannot be practical exceptions. There is no other option.So Protestants must still return to the Catholic Church for salvation. Yet many Catholics interpret Unitatis Redintigratio as suggesting there is personally known salvation in other Christian religions.There is a rupture with EENS in UR 3.This is heretical.
There is no basis for the New Ecumenism in Vatican Council II.Other Christians, theologically, still need to come into the Catholic Church for salvation.
9. The Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and also the need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.Since invincible ignorance, for example, refers to only a hypothetical case, this Catechism only affirms the strict interpretation of EENS.However the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and the sedevacantists (CMRI,MHFM etc) interpret invincible ignorance as referring to personally known people.So they are exceptions to EENS.This is irrational and heretical.They have created the exceptions when this Catechism does not mention any.
10.The New Theology is based upon BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions to EENS( Letter of the Holy Office 1949).BOD, BOB and I.I, we now know, cannot be exceptions to EENS. So the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) was heretical.
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were written and approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger based on the heretical New Theology.The same mistake is there in two theological papers of the the International Theological Commission ( Christianity and the World Religions(1997) and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without being Baptised(2007) ).
Similarly the Balamand Declaration and the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans was based on the heretical New Theology.
Many of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted the New Theology.In principle hypothetical cases were assumed to be objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.So LG 14 indicates that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and who do not enter, go to Hell.It excludes those who are in invincible ignorance and are allegedly personally known.This is heresy and the reasoning is convoluted.
REINTERPRETATION
Since 'the red is not an exception to the blue' 1 we can read all Church documents in a rational and non heretical way, in spite of the mistakes of the past.
The popes and cardinals did not correct the error in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.It was the Holy Office (CDF) and the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing, who were in heresy and not Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So the first part of LOHO affirms the strict interpretation of EENS and the second part which mentions BOD, BOB and I.I does not conflict with it.
Similarly when the Catechisms and the popes and saints affirm the strict interpretation of EENS they are still Feeneyites.Since BOD, BOB and I.I which they mention, can never be exceptions to EENS.
Similarly Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are also Feeneyite, since the red passages do not contradict the blue.
So inspite of the New Theology, we can re-read Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus as being Feeneyite, with the red not being an exception to the blue.
So the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II is still the same.We are back to traditional Catholic mision- doctrine and theology.There is only an ecumenism of return and there is no rational theological basis for the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiolgy, New Theology etc.There were all based upon known salvation outside the Catholic Church.
So EENS today is the same as it was in the 16th century.Vatican Council II is no more a rupture with EENS.
The text of Vatican Council II is heretical though when it suggests BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7, LG 14) and that invincible ignorance refers to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church so only those who know about Jesus and the Church need to enter for salvation(LG 14).
-Lionel Andrades
1
FEBRUARY 9, 2019
The red is not an exception to the blue' : new extraordinary understanding of Vatican Council II
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-red-is-not-exception-to-blue-new.html
JANUARY 27, 2019
Repost : The red is not an exception to the blue, the red does not contradict the blue : Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/repost-red-is-not-exception-to-blue-red.html
JANUARY 25, 2019
For me the red does not contradict the blue so there is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition ( Graphics)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/for-me-red-does-not-contrradict-blue-so.html
________________________________________
________________________________________
JANUARY 25, 2019
The Social Reign of Christ the King can be proclaimed based on Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-social-reign-of-christ-king-can-be.html
JANUARY 24, 2019
Vatican Council II's Decree on Ecumenism ( Unitatis Redintigratio) supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/vatican-council-iis-decree-on-ecumenism.html
JANUARY 11, 2019
Traditionalist cites Vatican Council II in support of Tradition - the Restoration has begun
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/traditionalist-cites-vatican-council-ii.html
JANUARY 8, 2019
St.Robert Bellarmine was a Feeneyite and so was St. Thomas Aquinas.So is Vatican Council II
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/strobert-bellarmine-was-feeneyite-and.html
JANUARY 5, 2019
Vatican Council II has a heretical theology but in a peculiar way it can be interpreted non heretically
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/vatican-council-ii-has-heretical.html
DECEMBER 31, 2018
The Traditional Latin Mass must not be separated from the exclusive-salvation theology of Vatican Council II (Graphics)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-traditional-latin-mass-must-not-be.html
DECEMBER 27, 2018
Even though Cardinal Ratzinger wrote magisterial documents with a false premise and inference we can re-interpret them without the error : Vatican Council II can be Feeneyite or Cushingite
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/even-though-cardinal-ratzinger-wrote.html
DECEMBER 26, 2018
What is the difference between the old and new theology? How is the new theology created ? : important to know
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/what-is-difference-between-old-and-new.html
DECEMBER 23, 2018
Edward Pentin supports heresy - and receives the Eucharist at Mass in sacrilege ? He rejects the Syllabus of Errors , Athanasius Creed, past catechisms, original understanding of the Nicene Creed,the dogma EENS and reinterprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition when it is not
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/edward-pentin-supports-heresy-and.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment