Peter Kwasniewski interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Council of Trent since he uses the New Theology with its false premise and inference. This is a big mistake and a common one in the Church.
It is the same mistake made by Steve Skojec at 1Peter5 and also the correspondents at Rorate Caeili. They interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, like the liberals.
One person follows the other without really thinking this through.
So it is asked , "How could you be correct and every one else be wrong?".
This was possible since since I was given the insight to see that invisible people cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This is common sense.It is something obvious. One does not have to be a theologian to know this.
So now we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II and EENS, theirs and mine.
1.Refers to invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) and Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc.
2.Refers to visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc.
So there are two ways to interpret magisterial documents and the conclusion is different.
N.1 is rational and it is my choice.
N. 2 is irrational and it is the common choice of Catholics.
Peter Kwasniewski uses the irrational option.Steve Skojec does the same.
Now that they know this will they change ? Hardly.
I have been saying the same thing over many years.
Many know that it is politically correct with the Left for Catholics to use the irrational option. There will be no threats if you are a public speaker or writer.
But if you use Option Number One, which is rational and traditional, there is persecution. There is general intolerance from those who call for tolerance for leftist, Satanic values.
So is Steve Skojec going to promote catechetical material which is Feeneyite and rational?
Will Peter Kwasniewski on LifeSites News and Rorate Caeili affirm Feneeyite EENS?
Or will they say Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO)was correct since invisible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc are visible and seen- in- the-flesh examples of salvation outside the Church in 2019.Otherwise how could they be exceptions to EENS?
Will the latinist Ryan Grant say that St. Robert Bellarmine was Feeneyite since BOD, BOB and I.I never ever were exceptions to his Feeneyite, strict interpretation of EENS ?
What about the liberals ?
Recently I met Cardinal Wilfrid Napier on the Rome metro.He had a black shirt with his cross attached to a chain around his neck. Only the silver chain could be seen since the cross was hidden in his shirt pocket.It could only be identified by the chain.
He said the cross kept moving as he walked and so he placed it in the pocket.
I briefly tried to explain what I write on this blog before he got off at the Vatican metro station.
Is he going to affirm Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS when he is in South Africa? I find it difficult to imagine him doing so.
Will the apologists at EWTN and Catholic Answers use the rational option to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II ?
If they did so it could only be part of a miracle an intervention which would be supernatural.
Here are passages in Vatican Council II which are interpreted differently by me and every one else.The passages in red would be an exception to the passages in blue for other Catholics. For me they are always hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict EENS or the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
So now we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II and EENS, theirs and mine.
1.Refers to invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) and Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc.
2.Refers to visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc.
So there are two ways to interpret magisterial documents and the conclusion is different.
N.1 is rational and it is my choice.
N. 2 is irrational and it is the common choice of Catholics.
Peter Kwasniewski uses the irrational option.Steve Skojec does the same.
Now that they know this will they change ? Hardly.
I have been saying the same thing over many years.
Many know that it is politically correct with the Left for Catholics to use the irrational option. There will be no threats if you are a public speaker or writer.
But if you use Option Number One, which is rational and traditional, there is persecution. There is general intolerance from those who call for tolerance for leftist, Satanic values.
So is Steve Skojec going to promote catechetical material which is Feeneyite and rational?
Will Peter Kwasniewski on LifeSites News and Rorate Caeili affirm Feneeyite EENS?
Or will they say Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO)was correct since invisible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc are visible and seen- in- the-flesh examples of salvation outside the Church in 2019.Otherwise how could they be exceptions to EENS?
Will the latinist Ryan Grant say that St. Robert Bellarmine was Feeneyite since BOD, BOB and I.I never ever were exceptions to his Feeneyite, strict interpretation of EENS ?
What about the liberals ?
Recently I met Cardinal Wilfrid Napier on the Rome metro.He had a black shirt with his cross attached to a chain around his neck. Only the silver chain could be seen since the cross was hidden in his shirt pocket.It could only be identified by the chain.
He said the cross kept moving as he walked and so he placed it in the pocket.
I briefly tried to explain what I write on this blog before he got off at the Vatican metro station.
Is he going to affirm Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS when he is in South Africa? I find it difficult to imagine him doing so.
Will the apologists at EWTN and Catholic Answers use the rational option to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II ?
If they did so it could only be part of a miracle an intervention which would be supernatural.
Here are passages in Vatican Council II which are interpreted differently by me and every one else.The passages in red would be an exception to the passages in blue for other Catholics. For me they are always hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict EENS or the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatitis Redintigratio 3
We have to keep in mind that many of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II in principle assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical.
In principle, as a rule, they assumed hypothetical cases were objective examples of salvation in the present times(1965).
This was the reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So as a rule they violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.A person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance for example, cannot be seen in Heaven and on earth at the same time. If they cannot be seen on earth then how can they be exceptions to relevant to EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return ?
Now if we interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical then the passages in red, which are hypothetical, theoretical and speculative, do not contradict the passages in blue. They are not personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.
The liberals and traditionalists presently interpret the red passages irrationally.
-Lionel Andrades
JANUARY 3, 2019
TAGS/LABELS FROM THE IGHT HAND SIDE BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS.
- Red Column (4)
- Blue Column (4)
- Two Columns (2)
Posts
