Archbishop
Carlo Maria Vigano cannot appeal against the trial which accused him of schism and
excommunicated him since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. They all interpret Vatican
Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally and not
rationally.
For
them LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible cases
in 2024.
For
me LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically invisible cases
in 2024.
So
for them Vatican Council II has practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism
while for me they are not exceptions. They are simply hypothetical cases.
Since
Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition (EENS etc) for them, they imply that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3 NA 2,
GS 22. Only visible cases can be practical.
So
in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q (invincible ignorance) would contradict 27
Q and 29Q (other religions are not paths to salvation, outside the Church there
is no salvation), for them- but not for me.
For
them 29 Q would be a visible case of someone saved outside the Catholic Church
but for me it is an invisible case. They are irrational and I am rational. For
them the Catechism contradicts itself but for me there is no contradiction.
Similarly
they would accept the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of
Boston which indicates that invisible cases of the baptism of desire are
visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Similarly
Lumen Pentium 16 (invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14(being saved with
the baptism of desire) would be exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed
and the Syllabus of Errors- but not for me.
Since
I premises are different are conclusions are different. For them invisible
people are visible and for me they are invisible only.
For
them invisible people are visible exceptions for the dogma EENS. For me
invisible cases cannot be exceptions for the dogma EENS.
-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment