1.If the Boston Heresy
Case refers to the heresy of Fr. Leonard
Feeney ( as the Boston secular media suggested) then Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition but 2.if it refers to
the heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing,the archbishop of
Boston, then Vatican Council II is not a
break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
There are two paths.
The Church chose the wrong path.It chose the wrong option. It chose to interpret Vatican Council II etc with the False Premise of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. This was the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII. All the popes since then have chosen the wrong path.
It was Pope Pius XII who
was in heresy. He confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being
saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for traditional extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). He approved the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which made this mistake. He brought in a New Theology which said outside
the Church there is KNOWN SALVATION IN THE PRESENT TIMES. So doctrine on
exclusive salvation was made obsolete.
The result : from Pope Paul to Francis, invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) were projected as visible exceptions for the traditional EENS, the Athanasius Creed , the Syllabus of Errors ( ecumenism of return), Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q, 27Q- outside the Church no salvation), the Council of Florence 1442 ( extra ecclesiam nulla slaus ) etc.This is interpreting Church Documents with the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII. - Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment