Tuesday, November 21, 2017

The only Catholic on planet earth who interprets Vatican Council II and EENS without the possibilities are explicit exceptions in 2017 premise

Image result for Photos of Amoris Laetitia and Vatican Council IIImage result for Photos of Amoris Laetitia and Vatican Council II
In Amoris Laetitia there is so much prose which are generalizations.It can be appreciated.It is harmless.In the same way in Vatican Council II, LG 16,LG 14, LG 8,UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc there is so much speculation with good will, generalizations.Speculations in Vatican Council II cannot be exceptions or relevant to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members for salvation.Speculation does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
There are no known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church without 'faith and baptism'.There are no known cases of non Catholics saved with speculative and theoretical  invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc.
So in Vatican Council II by projecting speculation and theoretical cases as being important, the liberal theologians pretended that these were explicit exceptions to the  dogma EENS.After Vatican Council II they had the support of Cardinal Ottaviani and later Cardinal Ratzinger.No pope issued a correction.
Now in Amoris Laetitia it is speculated that there can be known people, divorced and remarried , who can be given the Eucharist. This is false.There cannot be known people  living in manifest mortal sin and who could be given the Eucharist.If such cases exist they can only be known to God. We cannot tell when someone is living as brother and sister  and are really speaking the truth.We cannot deny that any such case, an exception, would be the cause of scandal to others.
Image result for Photos of possibilitiesImage result for Photos of possibilities are not  real
Yet by assuming possibilities are real people,who are  exceptions, to the teaching on mortal sin and morals, Amoris Laetitia  suggests  that the Eucharist can be given to the divorced and married.Similarly with possibilities of being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc, it is speculated with Vatican Council II  that there are known people saved outside the Church.They are considered examples of salvation outside the church, when in reality there are no such known cases. So in 1949 the Holy Office approved theoretical and speculative cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible and known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is the false reasoning today of Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Roberto dei Mattei and others opposed to Amoris Laetitia.This is how they interpret Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The error of possibilities being explicitly known to human being, is rejected by them in moral theology but accepted in salvation theology.
There is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church for the traditionalist blogger at A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics.Since invincible ignorance is an exception to EENS for him.It is the same with John Salza and Robert Siscoe.They cannot accept that the magisterium made a mistake.
Joseph Shaw,tutor at Oxford University,  will oppose this  philosophical reasoning in Amoris Laetitia  but affirm it in salvation theology.It is the Tridentine Rite Mass without the exclusivist ecclesiology of the 16th century Latin Mass.Since for Shaw speculative cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are real and known people saved outside the church.
Roberto dei Mattei says he is not a Feeneyite.Possibilities of BOD, BOB and I.I are explicit and known exceptions to traditional EENS for him.He is a Cushingite.So Vatican Council II has to be a rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass for him too.The false premise must be followed by the non traditional conclusion.
Theologically he supports the 'spirit of Vatican Council II'.There cannot be a spirit of Vatican Council II without the mix up among what is visible and invisible, known and unknown,possibilities and concrete cases.
Now in Germany, Malta and other countries  the Eucharist is being given to the divorced and remarried.The alleged known cases of salvation outside the Church; the  exceptions, is the rule. Possibilites are exceptions to the traditional teachings on morals and mortal sin.
They also grant dispensations for inter faith marriages with Protestants. Since the alleged known exceptions of salvation outside the Church  is the rule.Possibilities are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Image result for Photos of Dubia cardinalsImage result for Photos of  Filial Correction of Pope Francis
So like the bishops in Germany and Malta,  Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have made a doctrinal mistake in salvation theology but then so have the 'dubbia cardinals'  and the 65- initial signatories of the Filial Correction.I have written about this before and there is no denial from any of them.
None of them want to affirm Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 without the possibilities are explicit error. With the possibilities are exceptions error they are politically correct with the Left.
I am presently the only Catholic on planet earth, who is affirming Vatican Council II and EENS without the possibilities are exceptions to EENS  error.With this common possibilities are exceptions error, the widespread Arian-like heresy of today in the Church, there are new doctrines created.There is a Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and a EENS(Cushingite) i.e Vatican Council II with the premise and a Vatican Council II without the premise.I am the only person who is writing about this.-Lionel Andrades

When there is no evidence of the existence of any excepton, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS, the Nicene Creed, the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.It is in harmony with Tradition.



While it is true that there is no evidence of the existence of any exceptions to EENS, Vatican II gives the impression that there is Salvation Outside the Church by citing the Holy Office Letter to Cushing to underpin that impression.

Lionel: Yes there is a mistake in Vatican Council II.It is based on the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.In the Letter of the Holy Office  hypothetical cases like  baptism of desire (BOD) were assumed to be non hypothetical.It was concluded that BOD etc were  objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so it contradicted Feeneyite EENS.
However when we are aware of the origina of the error and what precisely the error is, we can read Vatican Council II knowing 'there is no evidence of any exceptions to EENS'.Then when there are no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in Vatican Council II there is also no more any ambiguity.

_______________________________
  So, really, one cannot say that Vatican II does not contradict past Church teaching in this regard.
Lionel: When there is no evidence of the existence of any excepton, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS, the Nicene Creed, the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.It is in harmony with Tradition.
_______________________________

  Granted, it is Ambiguous as one can interpret things both ways, but being Ambiguous only verifies that Vatican II is not promulgating Church teaching, but something else.  Ambiguity in teaching is condemnable.
Lionel: When one avoids the false premise i.e hypothetical cases are non hypothetical, unknown people are known, then the ambiguity is not there.The ambiguity exists only when the visible-invisible distinction is not made.
________________________________

Fr. Joseph Sollier, writing in the article "Theological Censures" states:
<<
(2) Ambigua (ambiguous), captiosa (captious), male sonans (evil-sounding), piarum aurium offensiva (offensive to pious ears), etc. A proposition is ambiguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious when acceptable words are made to express objectionable thoughts; evil-sounding when improper words are used to express otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith.
>>
Lionel: Vatican Council II should not have mentioned invincible ignorance(LG 16) and the baptism of desire(LG 14) along with orthodox passages which support Feeneyite EENS( ' all need faith and baptism for salvation'- AG 7,LG 14).This was a mistake from the 1949-Letter.So when a Catholic reads Vatican Council II (AG 7 and LG 14) it is ambigous. Since it states all need faith and baptism and it also says some  do not need it for salvation.

When I read AG 7 and LG 14, I know that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to 'zero cases' in our reality. They are not concrete, known people saved outside the Church. So for me there are no exceptions mentioned in AG 7 an LG 14 to all needing faith and baptism for salvaton. There is no ambiguity for me.-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) in harmony with EENS( Feeneyite)


Thanks for the post.What does he mean when he says that Fr. Feeney and the dogma EENS are in harmony with Vatican II?
Am I missing something here?
Lionel: The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to invisible and hypothetical cases. So they never ever were exceptions to the dogma EENS. This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the liberal theologians repeated it in Vatican Council II.
When we are aware that hypothetical cases(BOD, BOB and I.I) cannot be objective exceptions to EENS for us human beings; we cannot see or meet people saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I then it means that LG 16 is not an exception to EENS.Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopdia, for example made a mistake. Similarly AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) also refers to a hypothetical case. So the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales has made a mistake when it assumes 'seeds of the Word' is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.Similarly another hypothetical case is UR 3.  Bishop Fellay  made a mistake in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors,when he assumed that UR 3 was relevant to EENS and also an exception and so he criticizes Vatican Council II. Similarly GS 22 is also a hypothetical case for us. So Cardinal Ratzinger and the then Fr,Luiz Ladaria s.j( now the cardinal- secretary of the CDF) were wrong to assume that GS 22 and LG 16 were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and were examples of salvation outside the Church(Christianity and the World Religions, ITC). Cardinal Ladaria mistook a possibility as being a known exception to EENS.
So when we avoid the invisible-visible mistake which all the above mentioned people have made we find that Vatican Council II does not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.-Lionel Andrades

It is always the case of an unknown catechumen who desired the baptism of water and died before receiving it. He is always invisible : there is no known case

What do you mean by physically known cases?

So the baptisim of desire is not an example of salvation outside the Church, it is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as an exception.

It does not matter if we know of specific cases.
If we do not know of any case of the baptism of desire etc in 2017, or during our life time, I cannot meet or see someone saved as such. I cannot name any one saved with the baptism of desire.So the baptisim of desire is not an example of salvation outside the Church, it is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as an exception.
______________________

 When the Church says in voto,
it means in voto exists, and yes, God knows who they are. 
O.K lets say there is an in voto case known only to God. So what? It does not exist in our reality. So fine we affirm it hypothetically but it is not relevant to EENS as an exception. For there to be an exception somebody has to be present.
Invisible and hypothetical cases cannot be real people;, real exceptions in the present times to all neeing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.
_______________________

So you have conceded
my point. We have already discussed this.

I do not know what point you are referring to: I have been saying invisible cases of the baptism of desire cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma EENS You are not agreeing with me. 

I say that theoretical possibilities from the past cannot be defacto and concrete exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2017. I do not know if you agree with me.
Lionel Andrades

Monday, November 20, 2017

Bishop Athanasius Schneider acts as if he still does not know or understand the precise fault in the interpretation of Vatican Council II which results in a rupture with Tradition.

In a video of an interview with Bishop Athansius Schneider  Michael Matt asks, 'When can we get to the point and say that Vatican Council II simply failed and a future Council can correct it? Bishop Schneider responds saying it was basically a wrong interpretation of Vatican Council II which resulted in a rupture with Tradition.
He acts as if he still does not know or understand the precise fault in the interpretation which results in a rupture with Tradition.
He also will not affirm Vatican Council II without this precise fault if he knows about it.
-Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 13, 2017


Where is Bishop Athansius Schneider?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/where-is-bishop-athansius-schneider.html

JULY 22, 2017



Bishop Schneider will not say that Pope Francis has made an objective mistake and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/bishop-schneider-will-not-say-that-pope.html

 AUGUST 22, 2017

Bishop Athanasius Schneider is part of the Arian heresy and he does not know ithttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-is-part-of.html


AUGUST 22, 2017

When the two popes say invisible cases of BOD are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS they contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction and the past magisterium

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/when-two-popes-say-invisible-cases-of.html



https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/remnant-television/item/3564-bishop-schneider-interviewed-by-michael-matt