The new
cardinal-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who will replace Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, interprets Lumen Gentium 8,14 and 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3,Nostra Aetate 2, Gaudium et Specs 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as a rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (EENS), when they are not.
Even
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, the present and
outgoing, Prefect of the CDF, interprets LG 8,14,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc, as being objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed( all need the Cathlic faith for salvation) and the Syllabus of
Errors( an ecumenism of return), when they are not.
So when the
Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation (Ad Gentes 7), Vatican
Council II supports EENS, according to the missionaries of the 16th
century.
When the
saints Thomas Aquinas, Anthony Marie Claret and others,mentioned the baptism of desire
(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), they were always referring
to physically invisible cases which were not practical exceptions for the
dogmatic and strict interpretation of EENS.
So the new
German Prefect of the CDF, like Cardinal Ladaria, is a modernist on Vatican
Council II. He interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. He is a political appointee.
It was the same for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
In two
papers of the International Theological Commission, Ratzinger and Ladaria,
interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. There has been no
denial from the CDF.
For me, LG
8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always hypothetical and physically
invisible. So Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition. The Council
supports the past ecclesiocentrism. The Council is Feeneyite. It is dogmatic (AG
7/EENS).
So I choose
to interpret rationally the concepts, collegiality based upon Tradition, an ecumenism of return only, religious
liberty in a Catholic State, mission in interreligious dialogue, traditional
mission based upon exclusive salvation etc. There is no break with Tradition.
Why should I
interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like Archbishop Augustine di Noia,
Secretary of the CDF? There is a rational and traditional choice. LG 8 etc
always refer to invisible cases. This is common sense.
Look at the
damage Ratzinger, Muller, Ladaria etc have done as Prefects of the CDF.Now
Ratzinger and Ladaria do not have it in them to correct the error in
public.Ladaria is leaving without putting things straight.
Even the SSPX bishops are supporting Ladaria and interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. I choose to interpret the Council in harmony with the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 845,846) and the Catechisms of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q).
When Ladaria interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with the
Catechisms, he was not Magisterial. How can the Holy Spirit confuse what is
invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit, unknown as being known,
to produce a new theology ( outside the Church there is known salvation) and
new doctrines ( everyone does not need to enter the Church for salvation etc)
? This is schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium, which avoided this confusion.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) was irrational. The premise (visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) was false.Ratzinger, Rahner, Congar, Kung and Murray, among others, used this false premise at Vatican Council II to break with Tradition. Pope Paul VI approved the error.
So why
should we accept the new German Prefect of the CDF? He is in public heresy.
Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition. He needs to end the scandal
before offering Holy Mass in the vernacular. There is an impediment.
A prefect of the CDF must ask Wikipedia to re-interpret Vatican Council II. Wikipedia must also change their interpretation of Feeneyism. They must interpret the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(II), rationally (with the rational premise).
BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. They never were.
Also the reports of the US State Department on Vatican
Council II, Nostra Aetate etc, are biased. The Council does not contradict EENS
according to the Patristic period. Vatican Council II supports the exclusivist
ecclesiology of Holy Mass in Greek, which pre-dated that in Latin.
The Vatican
and Pope Francis must inform the Italian government and the foreign embassies
that Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS.The Church supports EENS as it was defined by three
Church Councils, over the centuries.
The Pontifical Institude for Arabic and Islamic Studies, Rome, must announce that they will no more interpret Vatican Council II as a break
with Tradition.
The whole
Church can interpret Vatican Council II rationally along with Feeneyite EENS. They both are compatible. We do not have to choose. It is not either-or.
The present two popes are Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II( LG 14,16 etc) rationally.They are not Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) which is referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16), is not Magisterial.Since it interprets the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance irrationally.
The popes from Pius XII to Francis have not corrected the mistake in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.Unknown cases of BOD and I.I could not be known and objective exceptions for EENS according to the St. Benedict Center.
This is understood even today by Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior, St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA.He agrees with me.
The Secretary of the CDF, Archbishop Augustine di Noia op,made an objective mistake in the CDF's political, Decree of Prohibitions, against the St Benedict Center, NH.The Dominican Archbishop, assumed unknown and invisible cases mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (847-848 on being saved in invincible ignorance) were objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.
These are all unsettled issues on Catholic doctrine which Cardinal Luiz Ladaria leaves behind, as he exits the Office of the CDF Prefect.
As a Jesuit he needs to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and his expulsion from their community and the Jesuits rejection of EENS according to St. Ignatius of Loyola.The founders of the Jesuits did not use the false premise ( invisible people are visible).
Cardinal Ladaria needs to clarify before leaving that even though the Council Fathers- Ratzinger, Rahner and others along with Pope Paul VI, made a mistake when they accepted the irrational 1949 Letter (LOHO), Vatican Council II can be re-interpreted rationally,with the rational premise( invisible cases are always invisible only, invisible people are invisible) and the Council is in harmony with the past Magisterium on exclusive salvation, the exclusivist ecclesiology, the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1442) etc).-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________________
___________________________________________
DECEMBER 21, 2022
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment