I interpret Vatican Council II without the false
premise . So I interpret LG 8, LG 14. LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican
Council II as being only hypothetical and theoretical.They do not refer to real
people in 2021.
I accept the baptism of desire(BOD) and being
saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) interpreted without the fake premise.So they are
only theoretical and speculative cases in 1949-2021.They do not refer to
personally known non Catholics saved
outside the Church.
Since I interpret the baptism of desire
and invincible ignorance rationally there
are no exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors. In principle there cannot be exceptions
when invisible cases are seen as just being invisible.Unknown people cannot contradict an ecumenism of return in the present times.
Since I also interpret LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, rationally, without confusing what is invisible as being visible, I can accept the Catechism of Pope Pius X on 24Q and 27Q.
There are no exceptions for me for 24
Q, and 27 Q among the hypothetical cases of Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 16 etc) and invisible cases
of BOD and I.I.
Vatican Council II and the Letter of the
Holy Office 1949 would not contradict the Catechism of the Council of Trent
when it affirms the dogma EENS.Since BOD and I.I and LG 8 etc refer to only theoretical cases only.
There would be no confusion when this
Catechism of the Council of Trent mentions ‘the desire thereof’.
Defacto (practically) all need to be Catholic for salvation.
De jure (in principle) there could be
hypothetical cases, possibilities of salvation outside the Church known only to
God,and which exist only in our human mind.
The Council Fathers at Vatican Council
II, at least some of them, confused what was dejure as being defacto and so
taught that outside the Church there is salvation.- Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment