Thursday, October 1, 2020

Dave Armstrong and my interpretation of Vatican Council II is different : he uses the false premise

 

  1. Comments from the blog The Meaning of Catholic the blog of Timothy S. Flanders

    • Lionel Andrades says

      This statement is factually untrue, and it is simple to prove it: by recourse to the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and its footnotes, which are comprised of copious references to Holy Scripture (which may be considered “prior magisterium”: being inspired revelation) in 35 out of 42 of the notes. The other seven make reference to previous magisterial conciliar documents (five, referring to five councils: Florence being cited three times) or Church fathers (two: St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom). Here are the ones referring to prior councils:…- Dave Amstrong

      Lionel: The Decree on Ecumenism(UR) refers to hypothetical cases only for me. So UR no where contradicts the traditional ecumenism of return.
      Neither does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions, as it was known to the Church Fathers or the missionaries in the 16th century.
      So we have two interpretations of UR , Dave and mine.
      Similarly we have two interpretations one in which LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 are exceptions to EENS and the other, mine, in which they are not exceptions.
      So our premise and inference are dfferent when interpreting Vatican Council II.
      -Lionel Andrades

      Reply

      • Lionel Andrades says

        If by that, you mean that the documents contain literal heresy that binds the faithful, I say no: it’s not possible (and this follows from Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, since the ecumenical council must be ratified by the pope, who cannot fall into such error). -Dave Armstrong

        The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake when it assumed hypothetical and invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were objective examples of salvation and so exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
        LOHO says that one does not always need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is heresy.

        The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
        ‘Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’ because there are objective exceptions which are known to us ?
        The same mistake is made in Vatican Council II which cites LOHO.
        .Lumen Gentium 16 is projected as an exception to EENS. This is an error. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This cannot be Magisterial.
        I interpret LG 16 as being implicit and not explicit, invisible and not visible and so there is no rupture with EENS etc. But the Council Fathers ( Cushing, Rahner, Ratzinger etc) made a mistake in 1965.
        In principle they assumed unknown cases are known and then they projected them as rupture with traditional exclusive salvation.
        So Redemptoris Missio is Christocentric and not ecclesiocentric. This is human error and cannot be attributed to the Holy Spirit.
        LOHO was teaching heresy.
        -Lionel Andrades

        Reply

  3. Lionel Andrades says

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2020
    With the false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church

    When we interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church.

    When we accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which interprets EENS with a false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church.

    When we interpret the Nicene Creed with the baptism of the desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance being objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church without the baptism of water( this is a false premise), we create a false church within the Catholic Church.

    When we interpret CCC 946 as saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church as if we know of exceptions to EENS; this is false premise, and so we create a false church within the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades

    Reply

  4. Lionel Andrades says

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2020
    We have to re-read Vatican Council II knowing that the Council is referring to hypothetical cases only. LG 8, LG 14 ( baptism of desire), LG 16 (invincible ignorance), UR 3, NA 2, GS 22( people saved with good will ) etc are always only hypothetical.

    We cannot see St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water. We cannot meet or see someone saved without faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7). So we have to re-read Vatican Council II knowing that the Council is referring to hypothetical cases only. It is not referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.This would be irrational. Though this was the false reasoning of the Council Fathers ( Cushing, Rahner, Ratzinger etc).

    LG 8, LG 14 ( baptism of desire), LG 16 (invincible ignorance), UR 3, NA 2, GS 22( people saved with good will ) etc are always only hypothetical. They are not objective exceptions to Tradition( EENS, Syllabus etc).-Lionel Andrades

    Reply

  5. Lionel Andrades says

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2020
    The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Paul VI was not Magisterial when he contradicted John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 and the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

    Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference. In this way he contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). EENS was defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Form. So did he discard the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra, in Vatican Council I ?

    His interpretation of the Council was not magisterial when the contradicted John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 and the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church. -Lionel Andrades

    https://meaningofcatholic.com/2020/08/24/conservative-trad-dialogue-reply-to-dave-armstrong/  https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)