Veneration at Medugorje 21.07.2023

 

https://marytv.tv/marytv-latest-videos/

Like Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the CDF, Catholic Answers interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. They also reject the Church Councils and Church Fathers on EENS and the reference to Tradition by Brother Peter Dimond

In this video Trent Horn is irrational and political. He is projecting Lumen Gentium (8, 14, 15,16 etc) as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023.So for him these are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So he criticizes Brother Peter Dimond.

But Peter Dimond corrects Trent Horn by quoting traditional sources, which do not mention any exceptions.

HOW CAN LUMEN GENTIUM 8,14,15 & 16 REFER TO PHYSICALLY VISIBLE CASES

How can Lumen Gentium 16 for example, refer to a physically visible non Catholic saved outside the Church? How can it be a visible exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ?.Common sense tells us that these are  invisible cases for us human beings.They can only be  known to God. For us humans these are only hypothetical and theoretical cases. But this was not known to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when they issued their Letter to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It was also not known to the CDF in 1965. The CDF did not interpret Vatican Council II rationally.

The Church Fathers interpreted the baptism of desire , baptism of blood etc rationally like me and not irrationally like Jimmy Akins and Trent Horn

So like Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the CDF, Catholic Answers interprets Vatican Council II irrationally They also reject the Church Councils on EENS which Brother Peter Dimond quotes.

• Since they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally they are also interpreting the Creeds irrationally.The Athanasius Creed is made obsolete by Catholic Answers. The Creeds are connected to the interpretation of Vatican Council II. This is a discovery.

Trent Horn interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition but for me there is continuity with Tradition.

Catholic Answers accepts the 1949 Letter of the CDF which confuses invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.I avoid this mistake.

I AVOID THE INVISIBLE PEOPLE ARE VISIBLE CONFUSION

So for me what Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Kung, Ottaviani, Bea and Lefebvre said or did at Vatican Council II is irrelevant. Since I can interpret Vatican Council II rationally in harmony with Feeneyite EENS. I simply avoid the invisible people are visible confusion. The Council then supports EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III.It  did not mention any exceptions. This was the understanding  EENS also of St. Dominic Guzman and his friends who founded the Dominican Order at that time.

The Bible supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Feeneyite like Brother Peter Dimond and not Cushingite, like it is for Catholic Answers.

WHEN I MEET A HINDU, BUDDHIST OR SIKH

So when I meet Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs I know that they are oriented to Hell without faith and baptism (AG 7, LG 14, CCC 845,846, 1257). Catholic faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary means of salvation. I cannot know of any extraordinary means of salvation.Only God can know of an extraordinary means of salvation.

Since ethically, Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally, there can only be the past exclusivist ecclesiology at Mass, in Latin or the vernacular. We have only one interpretation of the Council and it is rational. With the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) today the same as it was for the missionaries in the 16^th century, we can only have the lex orandi of the past. Since the Council is in harmony with the ecclesiology of the 16^th century Roman Missal. The New Missal does not affirm the dogma EENS since it interprets Vatican Council II rationally.

AN APOLOGIST HERE  CHANGES THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CREEDS

How can an apologist of Catholic Answers be called Catholic, when he changes the interpretation of the Creeds etc for political - Left reasons? This is ideological and not Catholic.

Peter Dimond did not correct him on this point since the Most Holy Family Monastery also interprets the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I)  irrationally and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition for him too.

AT VATICAN COUNCIL II THE ATTACK WAS ON EENS

At Vatican Council II the attack was on EENS. They thought they could get rid of the salvation dogma by re-interpreting invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So there were allegedly known people, non Catholics, saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

So there are many statements in Vatican Council II based upon this error. Otherwise why would they have to mention LG 8, 14, 15 and 16?

The popes only have teaching authority today when they affirm the strict interpretation of  extra ecclesiam nulla salus like the Church Councils. It is not magisterial or apostolic to re-interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance irrationally to produce a rupture with the popes and saints over the centuries on the salvation dogma.There is no teaching authority when Vatican Council II is interpreted irrationally.

However, we have undone their bad work. Their bad philosophy and theology which is not Catholic can be replaced. We have made Rahner, Congar, Ratzinger, Balthazar and others obsolete now. We now have to go back to the old moral and faith theology. Since the New Theology and New Ecclesiology is based upon Vatican Council II irrational. So we are not obliged to follow them.

CATHOLIC ANSWERS WOULD ONLY BE MAGISTERIAL WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL 

Pope Francis, the cardinals, bishops and Catholic Answers  would be Magisterial on Vatican Council II only when they interpret the Council rationally. They are irrational presently.

When they interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally they are not magisterial. Instead they are heretical and schismatic. This is a mortal sin of faith.

Jimmy Akins and Trent Horn and the other apologists at Catholic Answers are also unethical when they choose an irrational premise (invisible people are visible, LG 16 refers to a visible non Catholic saved outside the Church), irrational inference (LG 8, 14, 16 etc are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are objective exceptions for the dogma EENS) and  non-traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, EENS, original interpretation of the Creeds etc). 

I CHOOSE THE ETHICAL OPTION

I choose the ethical option. I choose a rational premise (invisible people are invisible, LG 16 refers to an invisible non Catholic saved outside the Church), irrational inference (LG 8, 14, 16 etc are invisible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are non objective. Invisible cases cannot be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. I choose the rational and  non-traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition ( EENS, original interpretation of the Creeds etc).It has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Fourth Lateran Council II ( 1215) and the Council of Florence (1442)  which defined the dogma EENS.  

Catholic Answers is not telling the truth to Catholics so that the apologists can be politically correct with the Left.        -Lionel Andrades