The German Catholic Bishops Conference can no more justify giving Communion at Holy Mass for non Catholics : Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise has an exclusivist ecclesiology.

When Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally then in Germany they cannot justify giving the Eucharist at Holy Mass to non Catholics.Since there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church with Vatican Council II. So the non Catholic is outside the Catholic Church and on the way to Hell. He is not part of the community of believers. Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation and the rational interpretation of the Council, does not mention any exception in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.They can only be hypothetical cases always.

The German Catholic Bishops Conference  must announce that Vatican Council II is to be interpreted  only with the Rational Premise and not with the present Fake Premise.The correction needs to be made in the German secular media and the Catholic educational institutions, seminaries and theological journals.

Protestants are outside the Church since they do  not have Catholic faith, which includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church.These teachings have not changed with a Council which has a traditional conclusion when interpreted  with the Rational Premise. The Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II will have the same exclusivist ecclesiology.Non Catholics do not have faith and the baptism of water, which  are needed for salvation.The Council does not mention any practical exceptions.

When Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise then there is no theological development of doctrine in personal cases.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church in personal cases.We cannot see or meet  someone saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14), invincible ignorance ( LG 16), or where the Catholic Church subsists outside the visible boundaries (LG 8), or, with elements of sanctification and truth in other religions (LG 8) or, in imperfect communion with the Church (LG 8) etc.There are no exceptions any more.The Council has changed before our very eyes since we have changed our premise.

There are no practical exceptions for 16^th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed etc.So we go back to the old exclusivist ecumenism and ecclesiocentric inter-religious dialogue.

Over the centuries  in Germany the Eucharist was only given  to Catholics. Cardinal Marx justified the change- and also the German Synod- with Vatican Council II, interpreted, of course , with a Fake Premise.

Now some 200 German priests can no more justify same sex unions, based upon a new ecclesiology created with Vatican Council II (Irrational).They  interpreted the Council only with a Fake Premise.Now they have a choice. German Catholics have a choice.With the Rational Premise they are back to the old theology and ecclesiology. The Church has always rejected homosexual unions.-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 17, 2021

If they interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise they would have to affirm extra ecclesiam nullla salu ( with LG 8, LG 14,LG 16 not being exceptions), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( with UR 3 not contradicting an ecumenism of return ) the Athanasius Creed ( with no known exceptions to VC2), the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q,27Q( with invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire not being practical exceptions). They do not want to affirm this in public.So now they interpret Vatican Council II like Cardinal Marx and the German bishops.Acies Ordinata supports liberalism and progressivism.

 If they interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise they would have to affirm extra ecclesiam nullla salus ( with LG 8, LG 14,LG 16 not being exceptions), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( with UR 3 not contradicting an ecumenism of return ), the Athanasius Creed ( with no known exceptions  to VC2), the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24 Q,27 Q( with invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire not being practical exceptions). They do not want to affirm this in public.So now they interpret Vatican Council II like Cardinal Marx and the German bishops.Acies Ordinata supports liberalism and progressivism.-Lionel Andrades

 JUNE 30, 2021

The ACIES Ordinata in Munich were interpreting Vatican Council II like Cardinal Marx and not like me.They are still doing the same.

The ACIES Ordinata in Munich were interpreting Vatican Council II like Cardinal Marx and not like me.They are still doing the same.

FAKE PREMISE OF CARDINAL MARX AND THE ACIES ORDINATA

 Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

 

FAKE INFERENCE OF OF CARDINAL MARX AND THE ACIES ORDINATA

They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

 

FAKE CONCLUSION OF OF CARDINAL MARX AND THE ACIES ORDINATA

Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

 

Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

  

RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES

They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES

Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.

 

The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 25, 2020

When the popes and the traditionalists use a false premise and inference to interpret the Council it is not just another opinion or theology, it is subterfuge. It is telling a lie officially

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/when-popes-and-traditionalists-use.html

JANUARY 25, 2020

What is being taught by the Faculty of Religious Education and the Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University of Eichstatt-Ingolstadt in Bavaria, is really deception and politically Left subterfuge.This is not Catholic- teaching.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/what-is-being-taught-by-faculty-of.html

JANUARY 23, 2020

Seminarians from the Eichstadt seminary study theology at the Catholic University of Eichstadt-Ingolstadt,Bavaria and they are taught to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.Students from the seminary of St. Willibrand have to interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with a false premise and inference to study to become a priest.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/seminarians-from-eichastatt-seminary.html

ANUARY 23, 2020

Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Bavaria under Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with EENS, an ecumenism of return and the past ecclesiology.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/catholic-university-of-eichstatt.html

JANUARY 22, 2020

Acies Ordinata : Cardinal Reinhardt Marx was not challenged to remove books on Vatican Council II and not give the mandatum to professors of theology at Eichstatt-Ingolstadt https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/acies-ordinata-cardinal-reinhardt-marx.html

JANUARY 20, 2020

It is unfortunate that young Catholics in Germany, have to re-interpret Vatican Council II,in an irrational and compromised version to keep the German church away from schism https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/it-is-unfortunate-that-young-catholics.html

JANUARY 20, 2020

Traditionalists who are in schism with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB), invincible ignorance (I.I), the Athanasius Creed etc held an assembly prayer at Munich, Bavaria last Saturday against the 'schismatic' Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, Archbishop of Munich. https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/traditionalists-who-are-in-schism-with.htmlhttps://www.die-tagespost.de/kirche-aktuell/aktuell/Gebetswache-in-Muenchen-Dient-das-der-Kirche;art4874,204856

MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 2020

The German bishops consider the Lefebvrists and the ACIES ORDINATA as being in schism, since they reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and no one seems to know that Vatican Council II( Feeneyite), avoids a schism with the past popes on EENS, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc.

Catholic laity protest Cdl Marx, call him to repent for leading German church down schismatic ‘synodal path’ is the title of a LifeSite report.It is still not understood that the German bishops consider the Lefebvrists and the ACIES ORDINATA as being in schism, since they reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and no one seems to know that  Vatican Council II( Feeneyite), avoids a schism with the past popes on EENS, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc.

Cushingite Roberto dei Mattei who wrote a book on Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference, has no apology or correction to offer and now he is asking the German bishops to turn around.
 

For him invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS). I have mentioned it before in these reports and he has no comment.

In other words, hypothetical cases of an unknown person saved outside the Church is a practical exception to EENS for him.So he rejects the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechism of Pope Pius X on EENS and this is schism. He wants the German bishops to leave their schismatic path, which is based upon Vatican Council II.

Mattei is politically  correct on all magisterial documents which he interprets with Cushingism like Cardinal Marx, and then he is standing there at Munich as if he is an example of orthodoxy.

Just as he compromised on the faith, Cardinal Marx is doing the same, to protect his wealth and other worldly interests.

It would be something if Roberto dei Mattei was standing at Munich and affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions.He would have to admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism and not Feeneyism, and so made a mistake.

 

Plineo Correa de Oliveriera, the Hildebrands, Michael Davies,Princess Elvina Pallavicini of the past and Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, of today, also made a mistake over Vatican Council II.Once this is admitted then the error can be corrected and the Church can simply go back to its old ecclesiology. This would be unbelievable for the liberals in Germany.

It is only then that he can ask the German bishops to follow traditional faith and morals.Now the German bishops justify their un-orthodoxy,for me,  with Vatican Council II; Vatican Council II, Cushingite.This issue was not addressed in the statement issued at Munich.It was not also addressed at the Round table Conference before the Amazon Synod.

I repeat - the liberals keep saying that the changes in doctrine and theology is the result of Vatican Council II. It is like a new revelation in the Church. They consider themselves orthodox and  the Lefebvrists,as being  schismatic, for rejecting Vatican Council II.The two popes support them.

I too reject Vatican Council II Cushingite but I  affirm Vatican Council II, Feeneyite, which supports tradition and avoids schism.

Cardinal Marx could interpret the Catechisms and Creeds with Feeneyism, but he chooses Cushingism like members of the ACIES ORDINATA.

The liberalism of the German bishops does not come from out of the blue, it has a theological basis and this is never addressed at the traditionalist conferences.Joseph Shaw, John Lamont, Thomas Pink and John Rao  do not discuss  this issue since it would finally mean having to affirm Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II and they want to protect their teaching jobs.

In the ACIES ORDINATA statement on the German bishops there is no reference to Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and Vatican Council II( Feeneyite). The German bishops base  their doctrinal and theological changes on Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Then they justify other changes in ecclesiology.

The Life Sites Statement did not point out that the German bishops need to affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) i.e the Council interpreted with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.Then the common false premise is avoided.

Cardinal Marx and the Left know that members of the ACIES ORDINATA do not affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) since then it would mean that they support the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church with an ecumenism of return.They would not want to do this in public formally and oppose the Left.

So the Lefbvrists go along with Vatican Council II( Cushingite) which is a rupture with Tradition and is the theological foundation at the German universities. It was the same for the German Cardinal Ratzinger. Nothing new.

Roberto dei Mattei, Michael Matt, John Henry Weston and John Smeaton could affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), point out that it is traditional and rational and then ask the German bishops to do the same, since Cushingism is irrational and leads to heresy and sacrilege.

The issue still is exclusive salvation in the Church with no known exceptions.The issue is not a vague reference to Vatican Council II.

Is Michael Matt ready to say that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and that BOD,BOB and I.I are not practical exceptions to EENS ? Neither is LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc practical exceptions to EENS ? NO.His personal interests have always been the priority.

I had asked this question before the 'round table' discussion on the Amazon Synod.No one responded.

Does John Smeaton affirm Feeneyite EENS(BOD,BOB and I.I are not exceptions) or Cushingite EENS ( BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions)?

Does Roberto dei Mattei admit that Plineo Correa de Oliveriera  and Archbishop Lefebvre held on to Cushingite Vatican Council II and EENS and so made a mistake? The new theology is Cushingite and they did not now it 50 years back.

Professor Roberto dei Mattei does not want to be called a Feeneyite.So he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism like Cardinal Marx. Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit. It has a human error.But how can the professor affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no exceptions?- he is a rich man like Cardinal Marx.- Lionel Andrades

THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2020

Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Bavaria under Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with EENS, an ecumenism of return and the past ecclesiology.

At the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt       , Bavaria under Cardinal Reinhardt Marx,they  interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and so create a false rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), an ecumenism of return and the past ecclesiology. With the error there emerges a before- -and-after- Vatican- Council- II theology.There is a also a false division with the Latin Mass-Novus Ordo Mass ecclesiology in Germany.

Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) ends this division. There is no more a pre and post Vatican Council theology since the Council is traditional.The ecclesiology at Mass in all rites is the same.Since there is no rupture with Tradition.

The Department of Theology at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt must issue a statement correcting this error, with the approval of Cardinal Marx.

 STUDENTS FORCED

Students must not be forced to interpret Vatican Council II assuming invincible ignorance cases are objective.They must not confuse what is invisible as being visible. This is a superficial  and false way to read the Council.

VOCATIONS MUST BE FREE

Similarly vocations to the religious life in Germany  must not demand that candidates interpret Vatican Council II with this irrationality to create an artificial rupture with Tradition, and only then they will be accepted.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES NOT RESTRICTED

Religiouis communities must be allowed to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise.

All the present books on Vatican Council II in the university library  are now obsolete.They were written with the false premise.

UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOOKS OBSOLETE

New books need to be wriiten based upon Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and then there is no hermeneutic of rupture.Similarly the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 needs to be clarified.CCC 846 does not contraduct   exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)

In inter religious  dialogue  Cardinal Marx can no more follow Vatican Council II( Cushingite). 

Non Catholics are oriented to Hell according to Ad Gentes 7  while LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc being invisible refer to invisible cases in 2020.They are not practical exceptions to Ad Gentes  or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance to  contradict EENS as it was interpreted in the times of the Astro Hungarian Catholic Empire.

I mentioned in a previous blog post that the Acies Ordinata did not go on the offensive. They did not inform Cardinal Marx that he does not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.

So he and the present two popes are in  schism with the popes over the centuries on on EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.They make invisible cases visible exceptions.
 

Cardinal Marx and the faculty and students at the Catholic university and seminary in Bavaria are also in heresy on the Nicene Creed, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They have thrown away the Church's  faith teachings and this is a mortal sin.

He cannot use Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) as a precedent for making a change in society.

All the books written on Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) promoted by the diocese need to be challenged as deception.Ask Cardinal Marx to produce new books on the Council for young Catholics and to remove the present books which are create a misunderstanding.

 Cardinal Marx is unethical and so are the German professors of philosophy and theology whom he has approved at the Catholic University of Eichstatt-Ingolstadt in Bavaria.

 When  Pope Benedict was the Archbishop of Munich he also approved books written with Cushingism. They are not Catholic and Cardinal Marx  needs to address  this issue.He cannot knowingly   support writings which  Pope Benedict calls a hermeneutic of rupture with the past.

ARCHDIOCESE OF MUNICH MISINFORMS 

The Archdiocese of Munich misinforms Catholics at in Germany on the teachings of the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with Catholic Tradition.These are the issues that the Acies Ordinata did not bring up in Munich.

Similarly the German priests and professors  working at the Vatican and Italy must be challenged on basic ethics and honesty.

 What about the case of the religious communities  in Germany ? Why must they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference to be accepted ?  Why should a priest affirm Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) in Germany to be incardinated in Munich? Those who pay Church tax are not obligated to tell a lie and then receive the Sacraments. This is a legal issue.

FALSE MANDATUM TO TEACH THEOLOGY

Cardinal Marx is not removing books on Vatican Council II even after being informed.

He is not holding back the mandatum to professors who teach Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a  rupture  on the Council , even after receiving a notice.
 

Similarly  the bishop in Regensburg and other German bishops can  be systematically challenged for spreading misinformation on Vatican Council II and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

HOW DOES THE MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT RESPOND

How does the media, government and other organisations respond to the Catholic Church in Munich ? Is it with Vatican Council II  with exceptions to EENS or does the Council have no exceptions to EENS ^

What is the policy on EENS- is it EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions or not being exceptions.

EENS with exceptions implies that there are visible and known people saved outside the Church. It is assumed that there are literal cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for them to be practical exceptions  to EENS. It would mean Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston made a mistake instead of the Holy Office(CDF) in 1949.

DECEPTIVE AND UNETHICAL

Claiming Vatican Council II has exceptions to EENS is deceptive and unethical.Similarly coercing the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the St. Benedict Centers to interpret LG 16(invincible ignorance) in Vatican Council II and CCC 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) as being exceptions to EENS is also deceptive and not Catholic.

CREDIBILITY OF OFFICES FOR CHILD PROTECTION IN MUNICH

The Offices for Child Protection and Safety of Minors in the Diocese of Munich are not going to be credible if they say EENS as exceptions and Vatican Council II has exceptions to EENS, when they cannot point out any in 2020.It means their reality of life is different from the rest of the German.

It is common sense. There are no physical bodies in Newton's time and space saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptis'(AG 7). So Cardinal Marx cannot promote a false theology, which says there are and then change the interpretation of Vatican Council II and expect every one in Germany to follow the ruse.-Lionel Andrades

-Lionel Andrades  

 

 

FALSE PREMISE DEFINED 

Their false premise is:-

1. Invisible people are visible.

2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.

3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.

4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.

5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.

6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).

7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking  who are saved outside the Church.

8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.

9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.

10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/bradley-eli-at-church-militant-tv-uses.html

 With the false premise there are 'objective exceptions' to EENS. There are visible exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed is changed, there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed etc :-

1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.

2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred  to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.

3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now  unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.

6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.

7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration  etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.
8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/cardinal-reinhold-marx-of-munich.html

 

 

EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

__________________________________

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.

HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP O
OF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(We do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)

2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(We do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)

3.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.( If there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)

4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(This is a reference to an unknown catechumen)

 5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( Again we have a theoretical and hypothetical reference. We do not know who is united to the Church only in desire and will be saved.) -Lionel Andrades

TERMS EXPLAINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.

Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.

It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.

Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.

Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.

Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.

Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.

Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.

Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.

Vatican Council II (with the premise):

 It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.

Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise)

 It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the  the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.

Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.

Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.

Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).

Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.

Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.

New Theology: : (with the premise) It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).

When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

________________________

 TERMS CLARIFIED 

 BOD( Baptism of Desire . Case of the unknown cathechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is allegedly saved and now in Heaven)

BOB (Baptism of Blood. The case of unknown person who is in Heaven as a martyr without the baptism of water)

I.I (Invincible ignorance: The case of an unknown non Catholics who is in Heaven without faith and baptism and instead in invincible ignorance.)

LG 8 ( Lumen Gentium 8: The case of the unknown person saved outside the Church with 'elements of sanctification and truth' or where the true Church of Christ allegedly subsists.

 LG 14 (Lumen Gentium 14:  Baptism of Desire . Case of the unknown cathechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is allegedly saved and now in Heaven)

LG 16 ( Lumen Gentium 16: The case of the unknown person saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance and who is now in Heaven without faith and the baptism of water) 

UR 3 (Unitatitis Redintigratiio 3, Vatican Council II : The case of the unknown Christian, who is saved in his religions without Catholic faith or the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and is allegedly known to someone on earth who has seen him or her in Heaven).

NA 2(  Nostra Aetate 2: The case of  the unknown non Catholic saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and baptism. He or she is saved with good and holy things in other religion or with the a ray of that Truth which enlightens all mankind.

GS 22 (Gaudium et Specs 22. The case of the unknown non Catholic who is saved outside the Catholic Church. He or she is saved without faith and baptism but with goodwill.

NOVEMBER 11, 2019

 

The Oxford University Press has produced many books on Vatican Council II based upon a false premise. A deceptive rupture is created with Catholic Tradition 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-oxford-university-press-has.html