Bradley Eli at Church Militant TV uses a list of false premises. He uses it to create a rupture with Tradition.So there is a schism with the past popes and the past Magisterium.Since with a false premise 'objective' exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus are created. Even the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc. are contradicted. This is schism. It is officially approved schism.

 

 

Bradley Eli at Church Militant TV uses a list of false premises.1 He uses it to create a rupture with Tradition.So there is a schism with the past popes and the past Magisterium.Since with a false premise 'objective' exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) are created. Even the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc. are contradicted.2  This is schism. It is officially approved schism.

Like Pope Francis Bradley and CMTV want the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to interpret Vatican Council II schismatically and then accept the conclusion.

If he avoided the list of false premises  Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).But then he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS and this would not be approved by the Jewish Left. They would demand that he leave CMTV.

His report faulting the SSPX, 3 instead of the schismatic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is naive.Vatican Council II can be schismatic or orthodox.It depends upon the false premise.

By assuming there is known salvation outside the Church and possibilities known only to God are real people on earth saved outside the Church there are objective exceptions to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) has alleged objective exceptions. EENS is contradicted and made obsolete. So the fault premise is assuming there is known salvation outside the Church and possibilities known only to God(BOD,BOB and I.I) are real people on earth saved outside the Church

 

So by assuming there is known salvation outside the Church the past exclusivist ecclesiology is rejected. It is made obsolete.

By assuming there is known salvation outside the Church the ecumenism of return is rejected. Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to known Christians saved outside the Church. The old ecumenism is rejected and now there is a new ecumenism.

By assuming there is known salvation outside the Church the Syllabus of Errors on exclusive salvation and an ecumenism of return is made obsolete.

By assuming there is known salvation outside the Church the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation becomes obsolete.

In this way Vatican Council II is also made a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).It is only with the false premise that a rupture can be created.

But there is no known salvation outside the Church. So unknown cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 2 etc cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.

I repeat there is no known salvation outside the Church.

How can LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 2 etc be objective exceptions to the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return?

 

I repeat there is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church, we cannot meet or see someone saved without faith and baptism.No one saw a St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.The Church does not say that someone had the charism to see her in Heaven without the baptism of water. She is a saint of course, but with the baptism of water, provided in a way known only to God.

Now that we know there is no known salvation outside the Church we can correct the error.Possibilities of salvation outside the Church are known only to God are not real people in 2019. So there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.

 

People usually say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) when they really should be saying that they are not exceptions.

 

People have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as exceptions.

They have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as objective people, known and visible. But there are no such cases.

The conditioning has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). The liberal theologians assumed the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) were exceptions to EENS when they really should have said that they are not exceptions to EENS.

People have been conditioned to see BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions. 

They have been conditioned to see BOD,BOB and I.I as objective people, known and visible, but there are no such cases. -Lionel Andrades

 


1

Their false premise is:-

1. Invisible people are visible.

2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.

3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.

4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.

5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.

6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).

7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking  who are saved outside the Church.

8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.

9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.

10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.


 2
 So with the false premise there are objective exceptions to EENS etc:-

1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.

2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred  to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.

3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now  unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.

6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.

7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration  etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.
8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.

 3

 August 28, 2019 
Bradley Eli, M.Div., Ma.Th interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational premise to create a non traditional and heretical conclusion and wants the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to do the same 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/bradley-eli-mdiv-math-interprets.html