CMTV PANEL POLITICALLY CORRECT
Church Militant TV has a politically
correct panel. They spoke about Vatican Council II.But they did not say
that the Council
can be interpreted with an Irrational Premise, Inference and Conclusion. The Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican uses this bad option. I choose the Rational
Premise, Inference and Conclusion. So do others.
This panel interpreted Vatican
Council II as a break with Tradition. It produced the CDF-approved, hermeneutic
of rupture with Tradition. The liberal speakers were afraid. They did not talk
on Vatican Council II, simple and rational. Since this would mean
supporting extra eccelesiam nulla salus, with no exceptions. This would
complicate their life.
PROGRAM A WASTE OF TIME
Don't watch
this program.It would be a waste of time. They are repeating the same prudent
slogans and discussions of the past 60 years.
None of them want to affirm
Feeneyite EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions. It is the
same with the Lefebvrist- traditionalists.
CMTV and the SSPX will say
that they accept the dogma EENS but with seen- in- the- flesh exceptions of the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance. In other words invisible cases of the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions for the dogma EENS. This
was the reasoning of the panel too. They do not want to upset the ADL.
CMTV SUPPORTS CDF DISSENT
The CMTV has the same dissent
of the CDF and the Archdiocese of Detroit. The liberals on this panel could not
speak (or were not allowed to speak) about how Vatican Council II interpreted
rationally would support Feeneyite extra eccelesiam nulla salus, with no exceptions.
It is clear over the years
that CMTV does not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the
Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions.
It is the same with the Lefebvrist traditionalists. So how could they interpret Vatican Council II rationally on the
panel?
They will say that they accept
the dogma EENS but with visible exceptions of the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance. So they also accept the 1949 Letter of
the Holy Office, a political document, which says invisible cases of the baptism of desire and
being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.So EENS has practical exceptions.
This is heresy and that too with a False Premise, Inference and Conclusion.
The original EENS with
no exceptions is obsolete for them.
CMTV like
the SSPX and the CDF will also interpret the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus
of Errors with the BOD and I.I
being objective exceptions for EENS. So they do not hold EENS
like in the Patristic period or the Middle Ages. There are objective exceptions for them.
I AFFIRM VC2 IN HARMONY WITH FEENEYITE EENS
I instead keep saying
that I hold Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of
EENS with no exceptions. I am not a Lefebvrist traditionalist.
Neither am I a liberal like the present two popes who reject EENS the
Athanasius Creed and Tradition in general.
The CMTV panel interprets
Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise and then blames the
Council for saying there is known salvation outside the Church.
They will speak about Lumen
Gentium 8 (subsists it in) and not mention if they refer to hypothetical
cases or real, practical people. Since if it is hypothetical for them, as
it is for me, they support Feeneyite EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism. It becomes
political.
The panel did say that it is the
responsibility for the CDF to teach Catholics the faith.The CDF allows
people to remain in ignorance on the issue of Vatican Council II. In this way
they protect their interests at the Vatican. In the same way, CMTV keeps silent.
PRUDENT JOHN SALZA COMMENTS
John Salza prudently accepts
the heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II, since it is green-lighted by
the Left and the Vatican. He wants traditionalists to also do the same.Expedient and official heresy and schism.
Why should Brother Peter
Dimond at the MHFM for example, interpret invisible cases of the baptism of desire
as being visible exceptions for EENS, as does Salza?
This is irrational and unethical.Salza knows it is wrong.
WHY WOULD BROTHER PETER DIMOND TELL A LIE?
Lumen Gentium 8 (subsists it) could
refer to an invisible case in 2022 for Salza if he
wanted it to be so. He could support Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who
told Dr. Taylor Marshall that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire
for us humans in the present times.
The present two popes like the
CMTV do not tell the traditionalists that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite
on extra ecclesiam nulla salus when
it is interpreted with the Rational Premise. Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre was not informed by the CDF.There is no denial from Andrea
Torneilli or Fr.Antonio Spadaro sj.
No
one told Lefebvre. Figure that out. Instead they excommunicated him.
THEY DID NOT TELL LEFEBVRE ABOUT THE RATIONAL PREMISE.
No one told the archbishop
that if he interpreted Lumen Gentium (8, 14, 15 and 16) as being only
hypothetical in the present times, then Lumen Gentium would have the hermeneutic
of continuity with the past Magisterium. No one told Archbishop that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. Or as Dr.Taylor Marshall said: there are no explicit cases of Aquinas' implicit baptism of desire.
This would put an end to the
New Theology. Liberalism which divides the Church and comes from the 1949
Letter of the Holy Office is suffocated.
How can Pope Francis and
Pope Benedict, be Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II with a False
Premise, I ask CMTV? Only the Rational Premise comes from the Holy Spirit.TRADITIONIS CUSTODE IS IRRATIONAL ON VC2
Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode (TC) tells
the whole Church to interpret Vatican Council II with the wrong premise. How can bishops in good conscience
go along with it? CMTV accepts the TC mistake does not complain on this point.
POPES WOULD SUPPORT TRADITION WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE
Without the
false premise the present two popes would emerge conservative. They would be
supporting traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Social
Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and the non separation of
the Catholic Church and the Catholic State. This comes with the old theology.
This is a
secular issue. An appeal must be made to individual governments and
especially their Ministry of Education to interpret Vatican Council II with the
Rational Premise.
Students
and teachers must only interpret
LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as referring to
hypothetical and invisible cases in the present times ( 1965-2022).This is
common sense.
SECULAR ISSUE IN SCHOOLS
The Education Ministries
must clarify the obvious i.e. we cannot meet or see any one saved without
Catholic faith and the baptism of water. We cannot physically see someone saved
with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance and without Catholic faith,
who is now in Heaven. This is something obvious. We cannot see people saved
with the baptism of desire in Heaven and also on earth at the same time. No one
saw a saint or martyr in Heaven without the baptism of water.
This is common knowledge based
upon Aristotle’s logic and Newton’s concept of the universe.
But CMTV like the CDF does not
talk about it.
Posts
