Euractiv Italia | EURACTIV Italia
Alberto Melloni and the FSCIRE correspondents and staff agree with me. The FSCIRE and the European Union have been interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally i.e. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, do not refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 1965-2023 for them. They are physically visible cases. Only in this way they can be made exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So for the FSCIRE and EU , LG 8,14,15,16 etc, are objective examples of salvation outside the Church and are practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. This is irrational and it is their mistake.There are no denials or clarifications from the FSCIRE. For me LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases. This is common sense. They are not objective exceptions for the dogma EENS, for me.
The FSCIRE and the
European Union have all these years interpreted LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc as
being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church. This was
their false premise. So they inferred that these cases were practical exceptions
for the dogma EENS, which had become obsolete. This was their irrational premise and inference.It was irrational and unscientific.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,
UR 3, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases only. They cannot be physically
visible in 1965-2023.If anyone is saved outside the Catholic Church it could only be
known to God. We cannot say that any particular person has been saved or
will be saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance (I.I).
No one saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.
So for me, Vatican Council
II does not mention any exceptions for the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed,
which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation. Vatican Council II has
the hermeneutic of continuity with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechisms of
Pope Pius X and Trent. The Councils supports the past exclusivist ecclesiology.
There is no rupture with the ecclesiocentrism of the missionaries of the 16th
century.
The interpretation of
Vatican Council II by the FSCIRE (Bologna School) is now obsolete.It is political.It is not Catholic. It is unethical. Since intentionally the FSCIRE chooses a false premise and inference. This is even after they are informed.
Vatican Council II has to be interpreted only rationally and so there cannot be a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelization and New Canon Law. Since this New Theology is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and this is dishonest. The New Theology separates Jesus from the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.It does this with alleged exceptions for EENS.
But now we know that the Council no more has exceptions for the dogma EENS. So there no more is a separation ( when speaking about salvation) between Jesus and the Catholic Church. Membership in the Catholic Church is needed for salvation.It is not enough to believe in Jesus, according to the Christian denonominations.
So how can Alberto Melloni
and the European Union, with their books, articles and reports on Vatican
Council II, project the Council as a break with Tradition and then give the green light
for liberalism, like homosexual unions?
Vatican Council II is no more ‘a revolution’ in the Church but a continuation with Tradition. The
Ratzinger liberal theology made a mistake. It had its foundation upon the error in the
1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. This Letter, projected
invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, as being
visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This remained the error of the popes
from Pius XII to Francis and the European Union and Alberto Melloni follow it.
All the reports and videos on the Vatican website follow this mistake.This is being tacitly acknowledged by Alberto Melloni. - Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 23, 2023
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment