The ecclesiastics in the diocese of Commachio-Ferrara, Italy and Mons. Libanori, Auxiliary Bishop, Vicariate in Rome, who together suppressed a religious community of priests in Ferrara, must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of EENS ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus ) since practically they do not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.They must clarify their doctrinal position for the priests whom they had transferred

 The ecclesiastics in the diocese of Commachio-Ferrara, Italy and Mons. Libanori, Auxiliary Bishop,  Vicariate in Rome, who together suppressed a religious community of priests in Ferrara, must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of EENS ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus )  since practically they do not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.They must clarify their doctrinal position for the priests whom they had transferred.-Lionel Andrades

Roland Patzleiner - Il Figliol Prodigo

Bishop Peter Anthony Libasci, Bishop of Manchester, USA, his Chancellor, Meredith Cook, and Juridical Vicar Fr. Georges de Laire, must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2020), since practically they do not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II. Practically they indicate, in their correspondence with the St. Benedict Center,New Hampshire, that there are known exceptions to EENS. This is unethical and dishonest

 Bishop Peter Anthony Libasci, Bishop of Manchester, USA, his Chancellor, Meredith Cook, and Juridical Vicar Fr. Georges de Laire, must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2020), since  practically they do not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.

Practically they indicate, in their correspondence with the St. Benedict Center,New Hampshire, that there are known exceptions to EENS. This is unethical and dishonest.-Lionel Andrades

The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) always refer to invisible and hypothetical cases and so the Church( some ecclesiastics ) made a mistake in the LOHO ( Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston ) when it assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS.The same mistake was made at Vatican Council II and then in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, which should be closed down because of this error

 The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) always refer to invisible and hypothetical cases and so the Church( some ecclesiastics ) made a mistake in the LOHO ( Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston )  when it assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions  to the strict interpretation of EENS.The same mistake was  made at Vatican Council II and then in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, which should be closed down because of this error. -Lionel Andrades 

Roland Patzleiner - Dona la Pace (instrumental)

The organisers and speakers at the Catholic Identity Conference in the USA must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS with no known exceptions in 1965-2020 ) since practically they do not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II

 The organisers and speakers at the Catholic Identity Conference in the USA must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS with no known exceptions in 1965-2020 ) since practically they do  not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades

The International Theological Commission has made an objective mistake. The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Cardinal Ladaria should resign

 The International Theological Commission has made an objective mistake. The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Cardinal Ladaria should resign. -Lionel Andrades

Una Voce International, the Latin Mass Societies,Lepanto Foundation and organisations associated with Summorum Pontificum, must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of EENS ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2020), since practically they do not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II

 

Una Voce International, the Latin Mass Societies,Lepanto Foundation and organisations associated with Summorum Pontificum, must announce that they affirm the strict interpretation of EENS ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2020),  since practically they do not know of any exceptions and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II. - Lionel Andrades

Bishops cannot teach error. The International Theological Commission has made an objective error in two of its published paper, supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The mistake must be acknowledged

 September 14, 2016

International Theological Commission made a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/international-theological-commission.html

Bishops cannot teach error. The International Theological Commission has made an objective error in two of its published paper, supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The mistake must be acknowledged.. -Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 20, 2019

Vatican website omits an important aspect of Church . International Theological Commission interprets the Council with heresy and schism

The International Theological Commission has posted a document on the Vatican website Select Themes of Ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council II (1984) in which it sees the Church as Necessary( in a general and vague sense), being founded by Jesus,as being  the New People of God, a Mystery,a Sacrament of Christ - but not with exclusive salvation.

It does not say that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all need to be members with faith baptism(AG 7) to avoid Hell(for salvation).

The ITC interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational premise to create a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general.So it is not possible to affirm exclusive salvation any more.

With the false premise, mixing up what is invisible as being visible the ITC changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II and so also the understanding of ecclesiology(what is the Church).

The ITC in two of its theological papers interprets LG 16 and GS 22 as being exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and exclusive salvation. The ITC is irrational. We now know  there are no known examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church.

There are no objective exceptions to the understanding on all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.

So even if the Church is seen as a Sacrament,Mystery etc it does not contradict the traditional understanding of the Church being the Ark of Noah which saves in the Flood and  all need to enter (CCC 845).

There is nothing in Lumen Gentium to contradict the Syllabus of Errors, the Athananasius Creed, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the rest of Tradition. This aspect of the Church is not mentioned in this document on the Vatican website.
This is a heretical interpretation of Vatican which creates a rupture with other magisterial documents. It is also a rupture with the past popes on ecclesiology etc.-Lionel Andrades

_______________________

FRIDAY, MAY 18, 2018

The International Theological Commission(ITC), Vatican made an objective error in two of its theological papers and Catholic parents can correct the error when teaching the Faith to their children : Voice of the Family , Rome Life Forum ignores this family issue

The International Theological Commission(ITC), Vatican made an objective error in two of its theological papers and there is no denial from the offices of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria s.j.Catholic parents can now correct this error when teaching the Faith to their childrenThe Voice of the Family conference which concludes today can acknowledge the mistake.

POPE BENEDICT AND CARD.LADARIA MADE AN 
OBJECTIVE ERROR IN ITC PAPERS.

Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria at the ITC both made a mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.All these years they allowed Catholic families to teach this error to their children at home and in religion  class at school.

The Vatican Curia also wanted the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) to affirm Vatican Council II with this error.The SSPX is already interpreting Vatican Council II with the mistake but rejects the non traditional conclusion while the Vatican accepts it.It is the same with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider speakers at today's conference whose position on Vatican Council II is not clear.

The Vatican Curia has been informed about this but will not make the correction.

DI NOIA ASSURES LA STAMPA VATICAN COUNCIL II WILL BE INTERPRETED ONLY WITH THE PREMISE

During the SSPX-Vatican negotiations, a few years back, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia assured the leftist newspaper La Stampa that there would be nothing in the agreement with the SSPX, which would hamper Vatican-Jewish Left relations.He meant Vatican Council II would continue to be interpreted with the false premise ( the baptism of desire refers to known people saved outside the Church) and not without it (there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire).

POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE ASSUMED TO BE KNOWN ON EARTH TO HUMANS.

1) Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria assumed possibilities of salvation known only to God, were known people, non Catholics in the present times, saved outside the Church.This is false. There are no such personally known cases.But they assumed that there are  non Catholics,objectively visible, who are exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).In this way they could create a hermeneutic of rupture with the past.Now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) and Ecclesia Dei know that they have made a mistake.There is nothing they can say in their defence.This is a doctrinal issue.Yet the CDF is not asked for a clarification from the  Voice of the Family conference in Rome,again, this year.

INVISIBLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS ASSUMED TO BE VISIBLE

2) The Vatican does not deny that they made a mistake in assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) were visible exceptions to EENS.How can we see or meet people saved outside the Church with  BOD, BOB or I.I when they are in Heaven? This cannot be magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make a mistake.This is also being overlooked by Roberto dei Mattei one of the speakers at the conference today.He wrote books interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.Now that he is informed he will not interpret the Council without the irrational premise which creates a rupture with Tradition.Nor will he admit that he had made a mistake all these years.

LUMEN GENTIUM  8 ETC PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION VIOLATED

3)Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria do not deny that they wrongly assumed LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were examples of salvation outside the Church and exceptions to EENS.This was there mistake.Since LG 8 etc were not practical exceptions to EENS in 1949 or 1965.So how can Catholics in good conscience promote this error  ? To assume physically invisible people who are now in Heaven are physically visible and real  exceptions to EENS on earth, violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.

The CDF and Ecclesia Dei agree with me but they cannot admit it in public.This is a conscience issue.

They know that their interpretation of Vatican Council II these 50 years was wrong but they cannot announce it in public.It would affect Vatican -Jewish Left relations.

BOD, BOB, I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc are harmless, speculative cases and never ever were exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT PAST ECCLESIOLOGY

So with the past ecclesiology not contradicted by Vatican Council II or BOD, BOB and I.I, there can only be an ecumenism of return.Protestants and Orthodox Christians are outside the Catholic Church according to EENS and the past ecclesiology.When will Cardinal Burke,Bishop Schneider, Life Sites and Famiglia Domani discuss this?

With the old ecclesiology intact, before and after Vatican Council II ( without the premise) the priority still is the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State.

SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING NOT SUPPORTED BY POPE BENEDICT IN NEW BOOK

The Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State was not mentioned by Pope Benedict in his new book recently launched before the Italian Senate in Rome.Since for him there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church and so the past ecclesiology is rejected by him and other liberal theologians.

If people can be saved outside the Catholic Church and be known to human beings, according to him(which is false), then why have mission he asked ( March 2016, Avvenire).For him there is a development with Vatican Council II, interpreted with the premise.

THERE CAN BE NO NEW ECUMENISM WITH ECCLESIOLOGY THE SAME AS BEFORE

So now that we know that there are no known exceptions outside the Church to EENS and the past ecclesiology, now that we know that we cannot physically see any one saved with BOD, BOB, I.I or LG 8 etc, we can ask Pope Benedict why should there be the New Ecumenism and not the Ecumenism of Return.

Why does he consider the Social Reign of Christ the King not necessary to proclaim when he does not know the name of any one seen in Heaven without the baptism of water? Why does he consider a speculative possibility as a known case of salvation outside the Church ? An exception has to be  physically visible, for it to be an exception to EENS. Only a physically visible and personally known person could be an exception to EENS in the present times.If someone does not exist he cannot be exception.

These are issues which need to be discussed with the CDF and Ecclesia Dei.

CATHOLIC PARENTS CAN RE-TEACH THE FAITH WITHOUT THE LIBERAL ERROR

When Protestants who contracep and abort are going to Heaven even when they are not members of the Catholic Church for the Vatican and speakers at the Voice of the Familiy Conference, then why ask Catholics not to abort and contracep ? 

The International Theological Commission(ITC), Vatican made an objective error in two of its theological papers and Catholic parents can correct the error when teaching the Faith to their children.-Lionel Andrades

MAY 17, 2018

The Council Fathers made the same objective errors in 1965 as did Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria s.j in the ITC theological papers

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/the-council-fathers-made-same-objective.html

MAY 17, 2018

Rome Life Forum speakers violate Principle of Non Contradiction and their conscience does not trouble them

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/roma-life-forum-speakers-violate.html

MAY 16, 2018

German President must respect Catholic beliefs before and after Vatican Council II :outside the Church there is no salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/german-president-must-respect-catholic.html

http://blog.messainlatino.it/2018/05/roma-life-forum-2018-in-diretta-3.html

__________________________

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018

The Council Fathers made the same objective errors in 1965 as did Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria s.j in the ITC theological papers

As expected there is no denial from Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF). The International Theological Commission (ITC) made an objective error in two theological papers 1) Christianity and the World Religions and 2) The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die  without being baptised.The mistake was approved by Pope Benedict, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Guido Pozzo and others.1

1) They do not deny that they assume possibilities of salvation, which can be known only to God, were mistaken to be known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in the present time e.g 1949, 1965, 2017-2018 etc.

There are no such non Catholics.This is a factual mistake.2

2) They do not deny that they wrongly assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)  were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is also an objective error.There are no such objective cases in 2018.

3) They do not deny that they wrongly assumed LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were objective examples of non Catholics  saved outside the Church.This was false.We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church.

4) So when they considered LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being objective exceptions to EENS it was an objective mistake.This is something obvious.

So the CDF cannot issue a clarification saying Lionel Andrades was wrong since there are known cases in 2018 of non Catholics saved with BOD, BOB and I.I and without the baptism of water. Neither can the CDF say that there are known cases of non Catholics saved in 2018 without the baptism of water and instead with the references mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.

The CDF knows that there are no such known people and so there is an error in the theological papers of the ITC.

The same error was made during Vatican Council II (1960-1965).Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and yet also mentions being saved in invincible ignorance.It was a mistake to mention invincible ignorance in Ad Gentes 7.Since there are no practical exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.

This was an error. The same error was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Similarly Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism but mentions the case of the catechuman this was an error.There is no known case of a catechuman saved outside the Church.This too was an oversight of the Council Fathers.An unknown catechumen could not be an exception or relevant to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.

When the popes and saints referred to this catechumen or someone saved in invincible ignorance it was always to a hypothetical case. So they affirmed BOD, BOB and I.I and also the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. There was no 'development' for them.So Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.

The Council Fathers  made the same objective errors in 1965 as did Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria s.j in the ITC theological papers.-Lionel Andrades

1.

MAY 15, 2018

This is a scandal

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/this-is-scandal.html



2.

Here is Christianity and the World Religions of the International Theological Commission which he approved along with Cardinal Ladaria in 1997. Notice how the theology is Cushingite.So there is a rupture with Tradition.Cushingism is responsible for his hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).( But this is a reference  by Pope Pius XII to hypothetical and invisible cases.This is something obvious.It is common sense.) The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. (So he means hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS)  The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).(O.K,Hypothetically but what has this to do with EENS ? The Letter made an irrational inference too.)  In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870).(Again he is referring to an unknown person so what is this mentioned with reference to EENS? Why? Since his new theology is Cushingite.) But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.(Since he is a Cushingite he interprets Lumen Gentium 14 as referring to known people saved outside the Church and so there are known people saved in invincible ignorance.So only those who know and are not in ignorance need to enter the Church for him and not all non Catholics in general. This is one of the heights of Cushingism) The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII,( The teaching of Pope Pius XII on EENS with known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Unknown cases are known exceptions. This is Cushingism again.) but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.(Vaguely supporting Cushingism)

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14).(The catechumen who is saved with implicit or explicit desire is a hypothetical case. So why is it mentioned here ? Since it is not a hypothetical case for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j. They are Cushingites). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God.(He does not say that they are all oriented to Hell. Since that would be the traditional Feeneyite theology with unknown cases not known exceptions to traditional EENS) In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16). (Being a Cushingite he saying here that the exceptions are the ordinary means of salvation. He also contradicts the latter part of his Cushingite Redemptoris Missio).

Even ITC's The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised is also presented with Cushingite theology.

58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: (it was a dogma  defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Magisterium and not an adage)“salus extra ecclesiam non est”, (it was always extra ecclesiam nulla salus) the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.(He is referring to his Cushingite interpretation. His 'nuanced version' of course is not the traditional exclusivist understanding of salvation) The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood.(This is traditional Feeneyite theology which he will contradict in the next line by assuming unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation) On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord” (In other words they are exceptions to EENS  for the ITC and so there is no more an exclusive interpretation.This is his familiar Cushingite theology) - 

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS  WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html  

-Lionel Andrades


____________________________

MAY 12, 2018

Cardinal Ratzinger made an objective error in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus : we can undo the mistake and re-interpret Vatican Council II (Graphics)  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/cardinal-ratzinger-made-onbjective.html

APRIL 6, 2018

No denial from the Vatican : SSPX can make the same announcement as me (Graphics)  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/they-agree.html

APRIL 6, 2018

No denial from the Vatican : SSPX can make the same announcement as me (Graphics)  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/no-denial-from-vatican-sspx-can-make.html

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

Archbishop Guido Pozzo talks about doctrine with reference to the SSPX but does not mention the error of Pope Benedict and the International Theological Commission in which he collaborated

Pope Benedict approved an objective error of the International Theological Commission(ITC) and Archbishop Guido Pozzo and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J were collaboraters.They now expect Catholics all over the world to accept this error and interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents using an irrational premise which results in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.Catholics must assume according to them,that what is invisible is really visible and what is hypothetical is really  objective.

This makes the new theology and new doctrines of the Catholic Church politically correct with the Left.

Catholics should point out this error to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican and object to it.Since after so many years of being informed, the cardinals and bishops, do not admit that they made a mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Archbishop Guido Pozzo talks about doctrine with reference to the SSPX but does not mention the error of Pope Benedict and the International Theological Commission in which he collaborated.-Lionel Andrades

Pope Benedict approved the mistake of the International Theological Commission, a magisterial error on a faith issue which contradicted the ex cathedra teaching of three Church Councils and popes http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/pope-benedict-approved-mistake-of.html

 

 

 

September 16, 2016

Report on Gloria TV, in Italian, by 'Isole de Patmos' also recognises this theological problem, an objective error, among the 'Lefebvrists'

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/report-on-gloria-tv-in-italian-by-isole.html

 

September 14, 2016

 

International Theological Commission made a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/international-theological-commission.html

 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2016

Pope Benedict approved the mistake of the International Theological Commission, a magisterial error on a faith issue which contradicted the ex cathedra teaching of three Church Councils and popes

Pope Benedict approved the International Theological Commission objective error.The magisterium made a mistake on a faith issue. They did it with the mix up of what is invisible and visible.By confusing what is invisible as being visible a defined dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching', was set aside.It was no more part of 'the deposit of the faith'.

Pope Benedict assumed that the invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible. So for him Pope Piux XII was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.There were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for Pope Pius XII.This was not accepted by Fr. Leonard Feeney.

So for Pope Benedict when the saints referred to the baptism of desire the reference was to an invisible case, someone seen ( instead of not seen) in the present times.Like the liberal theologians he re-interprets the saints and popes on the baptism of desire.Like the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada he reads a reference to the baptism of desire by a saint.He then infers that the saint is referring to a visible case. He then concludes like the Holy Office in 1949 that the baptism of desire is relevant and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without  being baptized', International Theological Commission, 2007

 

59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.

When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. - The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without  being baptized', International Theological Commission, 2007

 

'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church.'

Why is it not necessary?

Since there are exceptions for the popes.

* PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission... The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission.The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

So for Pope Benedict, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j and Archbishop Guido Pozzo the baptism of desire is physically seen.Otherwise how could it be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

 

 

 

 

The International Theological Commission would assume that St. Thomas Aquinas referred to the man in the forest,in invincible ignorance, as being visible, concrete and known. So the ITC inferred that this was  an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Pope Benedict approved this wrong inference.So the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions being saved in invincible ignorance.It is relevant for Pope Benedict. He also did not object to its inclusion in Vatican Council II ( LG 16) at which he was present.An invisible man in the forest saved in ignorance is considered known.This is an irrational premise. It is is then concluded that this 'visible' case is an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. An irrational and non traditional conclusion is drawn. Here we have Pope Benedict's hermeneutic of rupture being made by Pope Benedict himself.

 

 

 

 

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were speculative and theoretical.The Letter assumes they are explicit and knowable in personal cases.This was an objective mistake not noted by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

 

 

 

 

We cannot see a baptism of desire case yet the New Theology of Pope Benedict XVi is based on us being able to physically see a baptism of desire case.

Then with this new theology LG 16 and LG 14 are assumed to refer to explicit cases in the present times and so Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.

-Lionel Andrades




September 14, 2016

International Theological Commission made a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/international-theological-commission.html