When LG 8,LG 14, LG 15, LG
16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases only
in 2023 than they are not objective and visible examples of salvation outside
the Catholic Church in 2023. So they are not practical and physically visible exceptions
for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), an ecumenism of return of the
Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X, on outside the Church there is no salvation.
So Vatican Council II no more a rupture with Tradition.An exception has to exist. The person has to be there. If someone is not there in our reality he cannot be an exception for the dogma EENS.
But the popes, cardinals and bishops and Catholics in general interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the Tradition of the Middle Ages. This is because LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Chruch. They are wrongly seen as personally known people, non Catholics, saved outside the Church in 1965-2023. What is invisible is mistaken as being visible. This was the original mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were wrongly projected as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. So Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center were criticized when the fault lay with Pope Pius XII, Archbishop Richard Cushing, the archbishop of Boston and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF/Holy Office), Vatican.
The CDF made a public mistake, a factual error. It is a fact of life that we cannot see or meet cases of non Catholics saved with BOD and I.I.
This was not known to the Council
Fathers (1965), who repeated the mistake. They projected LG 14 (BOD) and LG 16 (saved
in invincible ignorance) etc as a break with the traditional ecclesiocentrism
of the Church. The dogma EENS was made obsolete with this error.
Now we know that this liberal and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II is obsolete. We can interpret the Council, rationally. The conclusion is traditional and in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries.
So when Pope Francis, the cardinals
and bishops and even the traditionalists, interpret Vatican Council II,
irrationally (visible cases of LG 14, LG 16 etc) it is not Magisterial. It is
heretical. It changes the understanding of the Creeds and Catechisms whenever BOD
and I.I are mentioned.
We can now interpret Vatican Council II and all Magisterial Documents by avoiding this common error in the Church.
So the era of Rahner, Ratzinger, Lefebvre, Martini and Kasper is over. We can no more have Synods based upon the fake interpretation of the Council.
In Mission we must ask people to accept Jesus in
the Catholic Church only.Being a member of the Catholic Church is necessary
for salvation ( to avoid Hell) according to Vatican Council II. In Heaven there
are only Catholics (AG 7, LG 14, CCC 845, 846 etc), according to Vatican Council II. – Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________________________________
MARCH 27, 2016
Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith
For the priest from Boston there was no known salvation outside the Church,there were no exceptions to the dogma EENS and this was not supported by the magisterium of Cardinal Ratzinger.
The International Theological Commission under Fr. Luiz Ladaria S.J ( now cardinal-secretary of the CDF),which was over seen by Cardinal Ratzinger as the CDF Prefect and then as pope, promoted 'a theology of religions', religious pluralism, based on the irrationality in the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology, which he protected.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrationality. May God bless him for that
There being known salvation is central to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology
The new theology is based upon there being salvation outside the Church. This is irrational http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-new-theology-is-based-upon-there.html
The hermeneutic method depends upon how you interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-hermenuetic-method-depends-upon-how.html
Pope Benedict, Cardinal Kasper's false arguments for Synod Report : Vatican Council II agrees with the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/pope-benedict-cardinal-kaspars-false.html
Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/archbishop-lefebvre-interpreted-vatican.html
Pope Benedict's heretical interview to Avvenire prepares Catholics to receive a sacrilegeous Synod report after Easter http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/pope-benedicts-heretical-interview-to.html
You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see
The central point of what I want to say
__________________________________
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? -Catholic Answers video : common mistake
Presently every priest has to accept this subjectivism in salvation theology to be incardinated ; to be accepted by the Vatican. This point was omitted in the Liber.
It is obligatory for all Catholics to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) without the baptism of water, as being not subjective but objective, seen in the flesh in 2016.'
For me there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the two popes are wrong and so are the SSPX bishops.'
FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE
SEDEVACANTISTS
SUNDAY, MARCH 20, 2016
Rahner's Anonymous Christian is main line Catholic theology : coming back full circle
When Fr.Karl Rahner S.J created the term Anonymous Christian he had accepted that there was salvation outside the Church.So did the Fr.Ratzinger of that time.
1) they could allegedly see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water,
2) hypothetical cases were now known exceptions to EENS,
3) and the Baltimore Catechism said the desire for the baptism of water was a baptism like the baptism of water. Or, the Holy Office 1949 had accepted, according to Rahner and Ratzinger:
1) hypothetical cases are known exceptions to EENS,
2) the baptism of desire was a baptism like the baptism of water,
3) there is known salvation outside the Church
4) and Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center, the popes and saints of the past were all wrong.
Pope Pius XII and the subsequent popes really agreed with them. They could not support Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.
Those who accepted the new theology were made members of the International Theological Commission, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or Ecclesia Dei.
The sedevacantists and traditionalists also accepted the new theology.There was salvation outside the Church for them.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were known exceptions to EENS.There was now a development of doctrine.
The Vatican's International Theological Commission and the Catechism of the Catholic Church explained the new theology.It was based on known salvation outside the Church.
The St.Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA rejected there being salvation outside the Church.
How could the popes and saints be wrong all these years they asked ? They were supported by many traditionalists.
For the St.Benedict Center 1) the Baltimore Catechism was wrong and 2) the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) was also wrong.There could not be salvation outside the Church.
But then they rejected Lumen Gentium 16 and Vatican Council II.It was a break with EENS they thought .They did not realise LG 16 was a hypothetical case.
So in the rejection of LG 16 the St.Benedict Center and the SSPX ,both traditionalists, were now saying that they could know or see people in Heaven, saved with or without the baptism of water.Or that they knew people on earth who would be saved with or without the baptism of water.For the SBC it was the baptism of desire with the baptism of water for many supporters of the SSPX it was without the baptism of water.The SSPX position was the same as the liberals.
The Vatican Curia, the magisterium, used the same reasoning but they were open to Vatican Council II.
In a sense the whole Church was now using this irrational theology.
This was mainline, except for some Catholics, may be many, who asked where are these so-called exceptions? What are their names, where do they live?
They were suppressed. Threatened.
But then reports began appearing on the Internet.They asked if the SSPX, Franciscans of the Immaculate and the St.Benedict Centers could interpret LG 16 as referring to :
1) unknown persons,
2) theoretical and speculative cases,
3) known only to God
4) followed by the baptism of water since this was the dogmatic teaching of EENS
5) and not explicit exceptions to EENS.
Was this possible?
Many Catholic priests in Rome answered with a clear "YES".
This means Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as the 16th century missionaries interpreted the dogma.
The Ratzinger-Rahner theology had an alternative.There was a rational option.Without the irrationality the ecclesiology was once again traditional.There was a new possibility open in the SSPX-Vatican dialogue. The scenario had changed.The old theology was still an option.
The new theology is set aside.It is meaningless.
There is no development.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church.
Rahner and Ratzinger's work was in vain.Theological straw.
We are back to the teaching which Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center defended so well.
The two popes know this.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
There are no 'practical exceptions' in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
Presently every priest has to accept this subjectivism in salvation theology to be incardinated ; to be accepted by the Vatican. This point was omitted in the Liber.
It is obligatory for all Catholics to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) without the baptism of water, as being not subjective but objective, seen in the flesh in 2016.
For me there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the two popes are wrong and so are the SSPX bishops.
FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE
SEDEVACANTISTS