Due to the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) there are two interpretations of the Creed. Pope Francis' and mine.They are different.
The LOHO assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so there were visible exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The popes before the 1930's however interpreted the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being only hypothetical, theoretical and speculative cases.Obviously the BOD etc referred to the case of an unknown person.
Now for Pope Francis visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. So he does not hold the 'rigid theological view' of the past popes. He and the Left need exceptions to EENS.
But if BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS then they are no more invisible and hypothetical.
We now have visible and known cases of BOD,BOB and I.I.
There are two interpretations of BOD, BOB and I.I, his and mine.For him BOD, BOB and I.I are visible ( so he gets his exceptions to EENS) and for me they are invisible.For Pope Francis they are objective and for me they are subjective.
So his approach to Vatican Council II and the Creeds would also be different. Our Professio of Faith( Nicene Creed) would also be different.
For him Vatican Council II ( LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,UR 3, Na 2 etc) would contradict 16th century EENS. For me there is no theological change.
For him the meaning of the Creeds would have changed. For me there would be no change since invisible and hypothetical cases cannot be objective exceptions to EENS, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX,the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q) and the rest of Tradition, which supports exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So there is a new interpretation of the Creeds for Pope Francis.
All this is not permanent. It can be changed.
Pope Francis can choose to acknowledge the error and then correct it.
It would mean the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.There is no new ecclesiology, new ecumenism, new evangelisation etc based upon the false premise ( what is invisible is visible).
There would be no 'development of doctrine' based upon confusing what is invisible as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church.
The secret is out. We have found the missing link. We now know what causes the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.We can avoid it.
We have to acknowledge that the official interpretation of the Creeds, EENS, Vatican Council II, Catechisms etc is irrational, non traditional, schismatic and heretical. It is schism with the popes over the centuries.
It is not magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, a factual error.
The interpretation of the Creeds by Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Vatican Press Office,is different from mine. One one us has to be wrong.
I have shown my work to priests and they can find no fault. However they did not want to comment.-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 22, 2020
Ci sono due interpretazioni del Credo recitate qui da Papa Francesco. C'è la Sua interpretazione e la mia.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment