OCTOBER 21, 2022
Creeds change with the interpretation of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance
There are two interpretations of the Creeds. It depends upon how you interpret the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I). If BOD and I.I are interpreted rationally or irrationally, the meaning of the Creeds change. The Rational or Irrational Premise, creates orthodoxy or heresy. With Feeneyism or Cushingism, the conclusion of the Creeds is traditional or non traditional.
Not only the Creeds change with the premise chosen but also Vatican Council II. We can interpret the baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) with the Rational or Irrational Premise.Then the Conclusion of Vatican Council II is either a continuity or a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
In the same way EENS itself is Feeneyite or Cushingite. When we interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, with the rational premise, then it supports EENS Feeneyite.This is EENS with BOD and I.I not being being exceptions . When we interpret BOD and I.I with the Irrational Premise then there is EENS with BOD and I.I being visible examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times. It is wrongly inferred that BOD and I.I are visible.They become practical exceptions for EENS.
NICENE CREED
1.So when the Nicene Creed states :‘We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ , we can interpret this line with the Rational or Irrational Premise, with Feeneyism or with Cushingism. The conclusion will be traditional or non traditional, orthodox or heretical.
APOSTLES CREED
2.When we say in the Apostles Creed,’ "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints", it can be interpreted with the Rational or Irrational Premise, with Feeneyism or Cushingism. So for you, does the Holy Spirit teach the Catholic Church today that outside the Church there is no salvation or outside the Church there is salvation ?
ATHANASIUS CREED
3.We can read in the same way, the Athanasius Creed when it states : ‘Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.’
With the Rational Premise we are saying that everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions. With the Irrational Premise we are saying that everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation but there are known exceptions.This is irrational Cushingism.It is contradictory. It does not make sense.
Catholics in general, including the popes, cardinals, bishops- and the traditionalists , interpret the Creeds with the irrational premise.They assume there are visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. This is an objective mistake.
CDF 1949 LETTER A POLITICAL-LEFT DOCUMENT
The objective mistake, the New Theology, has come into the Church from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.The Letter was kept hidden for about three years before it was made public. The CDF Letter was part of the political-Left agenda to eliminate the dogma EENS in the Catholic Church. It supported heresy and schism with its New Theology.The New Theology says outside the Church there is known salvation; visible cases of non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. The philosophical foundation for the New Theology is the Irrational Premise.
PREMISE DETERMINES ORTHODOXY OF CREEDS
OCTOBER 20, 2022
Creeds do not unite :official heresy and schism
OCTOBER 20, 2022
Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Catholic Church. There are two interpretations of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed
OCTOBER 20, 2022
Creeds do not unite :official heresy and schism
The Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Catholic Church since there can be two interpretations.
The Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Church since there can be two interpretations. The line marked in red is now controversial.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints..- Apostles Creed
The confusion came into the Church during the Fr. Leonard Feeney case when unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were considered objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the New Theology said there is salvation outside the Church; known salvation, while the past Magisterium would state over the centuries that outside the Church there is no salvation.
So for me,the the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today ( Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 etc) that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.All must accept Jesus and his teachings in the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven(AG 7).
While for other Catholics the new teaching is that the Holy Spirit teaches the Church today that outside the Church there is salvation and all do not need to be members of the Church ,to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
For me being in communion with the saints means affirming the past interpretation of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance which was rational. It did not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS.
Those who recite the Apostles Creed in the Church today are in a rupture theologically and doctrinally with the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the saints of the Middle Ages and the saints before the 1940s like St. Maximillian Kolbe who held the strict interpretation of EENS and affirmed the Athanasius Creed too.
Most Catholics are in a break with the saints, since today they interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in in invincible ignorance(I.I) ,as practical exceptions for EENS. Catholics have to choose to believe in visible cases BOD and I.I or EENS. So they contradict the past saints.
I can accept both-BOD and I.I and EENS- and I do not have to choose. The BOD and I.I are invisible cases for me in 2022 but the rest of the Church implies that they are visible. So they become practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS for them.They were mislead by the 1949 CDF Letter and the false narrative of the CDF at Vatican Council II and later.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made an objective mistake which was overlooked at Vatican Council II. The present two popes and many traditionalists, accept the LOHO with the mistake and do not correct it.-
OFFICIAL HERESY AND SCHISM
The two popes obstinately doubt or deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They use the False Premise.
They also deny the centuries old interpretation of the Nicene and Apostles Creed by re-interpreting BOD, BOB and I.I.
They also deny the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.For them outside the Church there is personally known salvation so there are exceptions to the Athanasius Creed.
They re-interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with these Creeds even though a rational interpretation of the Council in harmony with the Creeds is possible.They do not proclaim this rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The overall result is new doctrines with the Catechisms contradicting each other.
THE ITC MADE A MISTAKE HERE
1The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”- 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized'.(Note: It is assumed here that those saved in invincible ignorance are are explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997.
3.SEPTEMBER 11, 2015
OATH AGAINST MODERNISM : MAGISTERIUM IS IN HERESYhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/09/oath-against-modernism-magisterium-is.html
Oath of fidelity made by all Bishops officially supports irrationality, heresy and non traditional conclusionshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/oath-of-fidelity-made-by-all-bishops.html
Meaningless Profession of Faith was made yesterday in Church for Easterhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/meaningless-profession-of-faith-was.html
JULY 4, 2018
MAY 7, 2019
The present two popes interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.The result is heresy
OCTOBER 20, 2022
Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Catholic Church. There are two interpretations of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed
I AFFIRM THE ATHANASIUS CREED THEY DO NOT
I affirm the Athanasius Creed.
I interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed rationally.
I interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
I do not use the false premise to interpret the Catechisms of Trent, Baltimore, Pius X, John Paul II etc.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a break with Tradition for me.Since I choose the Rational Premise.I do not employ the false premise, inference and conclusion of cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn.
I interpret Vatican Council II rationally so there is a hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite extra eclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Deposit of Faith and the theology popes and saints of the past.
My interpretation of Church documents is Magisteria. Since it is rational, traditional and in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.There is no development of doctrine.
The interpretation of Magisterial documents with the false premise by the present two popes, is not Magisterial. It is political.
HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THE APOSTLES CREED?
There are two options.One is rational and the other irrational.One is traditional and the other non traditional.There is the heretical option and non heretical, ortohodox version. One is schismatic.The other is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Most Catholics choose the irrational version. It is not prohibited by the popes, cardinals and bishops.
" I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" - Apostles Creed
THIS IS HOW THE PRESENT POPES INTERPRET THE APOSTLES CREED
1. When you say " I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" what do you mean?
Do you mean that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to teach that outside the Catholic Church there is salvation ?
Are you saying that there is known salvation outside the Church?
Are you saying that there are visible non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water?
So since there is known salvation ( irrational and a heresy), outside the Church, there is no communion with the saints on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed etc ? There is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism.
THIS IS HOW I INTERPRET THE APOSTLES CREED
2. For me the line, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" is traditional. I interpret it rationally.
It means that the Holy Spirit guides the Church today to teach that outside the Church there is no known salvation.
It means for me that there are no physically visible non Catholics in 2022-2023 who are saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So I am in communion with the saints - Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Catherine of Siena, Maximillian Kolbe etc - on extra ecclesiam nulla salus( with no exceptions).
There is unity in the Catholic Church with the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed. For me the Creeds say all need to be Catholic for salvation.
There is a continuity with the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return)and Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI on the Proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King, in all political legislation etc.The Creeds are not a break with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.But for the present two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) there is a rupture with the traditional interpretation.
TODAY THERE ARE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE NICENE CREED
This is now the controversial line.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins - Nicene Creed
This is how I interpret the Nicene Creed.
1. There is one baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins, it is the baptism of water. It is physically visible and repeatable. There are not three or more physically visible baptisms.
2.For the popes and the CDF there is another version, an irrational version.There are visible cases for them of the baptism of desire etc. Otherwise they would be Feeneyite.They deny being Feeneyite.
For the cardinals, bishops and priests there are more than three baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.These are known baptisms, personally visible. They are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance.They could include LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council, for the liberals. They exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Since they are 'visible' they are,allegedly, practical exceptions for 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is their False Inference. This was the bad reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It was referenced by the liberals, in Vatican Council II(Lumen Gentium 16).
MAGISTERIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CREEDS
When Pope Francis and Pope Benedict avoid the false premise, inference and conclusion, their interpretation of the Creeds will be Magisterial.It will be in harmony with the past Magisterium. There would be no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.They would become traditionalists.
THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR ME SAYS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION
Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases in 1965-2022, for me,the line, 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church',means the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that outside the Church there is no salvation.
But for Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican it is different. For them, the Holy Spirit teaches that outside the Church there is salvation(visible cases of the baptism of desire etc)
For them BOD, BOB and I.I( physically visible) are exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc., for them.
So our understanding of the Apostles Creed is different.
For them there are exceptions for EENS and for me there are no exceptions.
Yet all of us recite the same Apostles Creed.
EXCEPTIONS MUST EXIST IN OUR REALITY
It is the exceptions which determine the interpretation of the Creeds.They are Cushingite or Feeneyite.
In a box of oranges an apple would be an exception since it is different but also because it exists in that box. If it was not in that box it would not be an exception.But the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not exist in our reality.They are not exceptions.
In a hospital with many sick patients if one of them is healed then he is an exception since he is there in that ward.Where are the BOD, BOB and I.I cases being visible in the present times? Who can see someone on earth saved outside the Church?
For Cushingites invisible cases are visible.For Feeneyites invisible cases are just invisible.
EENS is rejected when Catholics say that not all need to be Catholic for salvation.This is Cushingism.They reinterpret Vatican Council II, irrationally and then say that not all need to convert into the Church to go to Heaven.Not all - since there are exceptions.This was the heresy and schism of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
With that same Irrational Premise of the 1949 CDF Letter, they have changed the Nicene and Apostles Creed with a fake premise.
They choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.So the Council contradicts the past Catechisms, the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
This is a mortal sin of faith.Yet this is the Creed for the bishops.
According to Canon Law a Parish Priest has to be a Catholic and affirm the Creed. My interpretation of the Creed is traditional. The priests instead are not traditional.The Parish Priests teach the common irrational version of the Creeds at First Communion classes and Adult Catechesis(RCIA.This is now political innovation.
To interpret the Apostles and Nicene Creed with a false premise is a mortal sin - but about everyone is choosing the false version.
To reject the Athanasius Creed is a mortal sin.This is a scandal.I am pointing out what the Church judges as being a mortal sin.
In my parish,Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea,Rome the priests are not saying that they affirm the Athanasius Creed.
It is the same with the CDF, They reject the Athanasius Creed with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.Then they say that the Council is a break with the Creeds.The CDF and the popes, and also the traditionaists,(SSPX,CMRI etc) do not admit that they all interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed irrationally.-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 2, 2018
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/church-not-retracted-outside-church-no.html
NOVEMBER 18, 2011
THE CHURCH IS MISSION- Pope Benedict XVI (Christ to the World July-October 2011) https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/church-is-mission-pope-benedict-xvi.html
MARCH 9, 2010
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment