CAN THE CHURCH TEACH HERESY?
Analyzing the Magisterium.
.It supports the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS in Ad Gentes 7.There are no exceptions mentioned in the Council-text for Ad Gentes 7. There are also no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II for the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. The Council supports Tradition.It is Feeneyite.
So Vatican Council II should now be of concern for the liberals and the Left. They can no more cite the Council to support their progressivism.
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and Inference and the Conclusion is dogmatic.The Council supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.
But Michael Lofton, like Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn and Patrick Coffin, interpret Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise and Inference and create a Non Traditional Conclusion which is and heretical.They were not corrected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
The CDF too interprets the Council with the same irrational premise to intentionally produce a break with Tradition.The result is politically-correct heresy and schism. This cannot be Magisterial.
HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION
The Council for me is a continuation with the past Magisterium of the Church on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. There is a continuity for me. This is my interpretation of Vatican Council II, in harmony with the past Magisterium. So for me Vatican Council II is traditional, with the old ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It is not heretical. It is Magisterial and inspired by the Holy Spirit.It is the Magisterium according to the principles, the theology and doctrines, of the pre-1949 Magisterium.The present two popes are not inspired by the Holy Spirit when they interpret the Council irrationally and un-ethically. The use of the Rational Premise must be obligatory for all Catholics, including the popes, cardinals and bishops.
CMTV SUPPORTS HERESY
I reject the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Michael Lofton, interviewed for Church Militant TV's program Micd'up. He repeats the official heresy and schism created with an Irrational Premise. This cannot be Magisterial for me. How can the Holy Spirit contradict the past Magisterium and that too with an irrational premise and inference? This is human error. This is political. It is supported by the political Left.
POPE PAUL VI COULD HAVE CHOSEN THE RATIONAL PREMISE
Pope Paul VI had a choice. He could have interpreted Vatican Council II rationally.Even Pope Pius XII could have interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance rationally.He could have corrected the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He did not do it.
FR.LEONARD FEENEY SAID THERE ARE NO VISIBLE CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying that there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. This is common sense. This was known to the saints.They did not project invisible cases of the BOD and I.I as being visible exceptions for traditional EENS.But the popes from Pius XII made this mistake.
The error can be corrected but CMTV, like the two popes and the liberals consider what is unethical and irrational as being magisterial.They are liberals and so over look this mistake in the apologists at Catholic Answers and EWTN.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
