Why should the readers of the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) website interpret Vatican Council II like Michael and Peter Dimond and not like me ?
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases for me and so they are not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). But for the MHFM LG 8 etc contradict EENS.
They suggest that LG 8 etc are not hypothetical but visible cases, for them to be exceptions to EENS.For them LG 8 etc are exceptions to Tradition.So they reject Vatican Council II. I do not do the same.
Our premises and conclusions are different.
Instead of blaming their false premise they blame the Council.
So why would Catholics choose this irrational approach to the Council?
We belong to the one, true , Catholic and Apostolic Church but are interpretation of Magisterial documents is with or without the false premise.So our conclusion is different.There is a hermeneutic of rupture or continuity with Tradition.
Michael and Peter Dimond use the common false premise like the present two popes. I avoid it.
With their false premise they contradict Tradition. Without the false premise I am in harmony with Tradition. Ecclesiology has not changed for me. It has changed for them and so they reject the Council, unaware of the fake premise they use..-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment