There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II today and the magisterial one is a scandal : Catholic writers are not asking the Vatican the right questions
OCTOBER 17, 2017
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II today and the magisterial one is a scandal : Catholic writers are not asking the Vatican the right questions.
When Catholic journalists and writers meet Vatican officials, cardinals and bishops, and ask them about extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) they go there un-prepared.When Edward Pentin asked Cardinal Gerhard Muller about EENS, the cardinal referred to Lumen Gentium 14 as an exception.He meant EENS had really changed.When Pentin asked Archbishop Augustine di Noia about EENS, he referred to Lumen Gentium 8, as if it was an exception and so EENS was no more like it was before.Muller and Di Noia saw Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS, ' a development', as Pope Benedict said in March 2016. Unlike Muller and Di Noia, who were vague, Pope Benedict has clearly said that EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century.So for me it means at one time in history the magisterium was wrong. For the three of them(Benedict,Muller, Di Noia) there were known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church.These are known cases, explicit exceptions to EENS( they would have to be explicit otherwise they could not be exceptions),people saved in invincible ignorance(LG 14) or with elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) found in other religions.This was also Edward Pentin's concept ofvisible for us LG 8, LG 16 etc, so he moved on to the next question without correcting Muller and Di Noia. Recently Maike Hickson writing for the blog1Peter5 asked her sources about EENS and she got no answer.She too went un-prepared. They could have quoted me saying,'I am a Catholic and I interpret Vatican Council II with LG 14, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22,AG 11 etc as referring to hypothetical cases, invisible and unknown people in 2017.I have repeated this many times on my blog.For me these references in Vatican Council II are acceptable as theoretical cases which would only be known to God.So of course, with or without the baptism of water, they are not practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.Since they are physically invisible cases they are not explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.' Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS as did Pope Benedict in theAvvenire interview last year. They violated the Principle of Non Contradiction by suggesting that there are known people in Heaven or on earth who have been saved outside the Church. This is false. There are no known people saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and in invincible ignorance(I.I).There cannot be such cases for us human beings. There are no such known cases in the present times with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.To suggest that people in Heaven are exceptions on earth to the dogma EENS is irrational.It is creating a new theology with a false premise.So if there cannot be any known case where are the exceptions? Also it must be noted that the ordinary means of salvation is ' faith and baptism'(AG 7) in the Catholic Church. It is not BOD, BOB and I.I.So how would Archbishop Di Noia know that a particular Anglican or Protestant would be going to Heaven even without Catholic faith? This person could be in mortal sin at the time of death and Di Noia would not know..So how would Di Noia know how Jesus would judge and why should he make an exception for any particular person. There is no way that we humans can judge and know who is an exception to the ordinary means of salvation. Catholic writers note : there is a Catholic blogger who has written that unlike the two popes and the CDF cardinals and bishops, he affirms the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church and other magisterial documents, which he interprets with hypothetical cases just being hypotheticaland so they are not exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.No one at the Vatican can correct him or show him where he is wrong.How can there be two interpretations of magiserial documents the Catholic writers must ask? Yet this is the reality in the Church today. For me(Lionel) Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia's interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational, non traditional and heretical. Their error comes from the mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when the Archbishop of Boston and Rome were in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.Since invisible casesof BOD, BOB and I.I could not be visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The 'magisterium' made a mistake. An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Similarly an injustice was done to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre when Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to visible and known peoplesaved outside the Church.So with this false premise(invisible people are visible, unknown cases are known in the present times) Vatican Council II became a rupture with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.They excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for not accepting this irrational version of the Council. I repeat, there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II today and the magisterial one is a scandal. There is doctrinal and theological connection between the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and that of Archbishop Lefebvre and Vatican Council II.The mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is repeated in Vatican Council II and then the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Once we are aware of it we can avoid it and the interpretation of the magisterial documents becomes traditional and supports the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. But it is the old exclusivisit ecclesiolgy of the Church which is being denied by the Vatican and the CDF with the use of an irrational premise and no journalist or writer calls attention to it.-Lionel Andrades ______________________
CARDINAL MULLER MAKES A MISTAKE ON LINE : ASSUMES UNKNOWN AND INVISIBLE CASES ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EENS.
CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER : MISTAKENLY ASSUMES HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES. That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Registerwww.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-muel… ____________________________
ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH LG 8 REFERRING TO KNOWN CASES.
ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS. I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.
BISHOP FELLAY MAKES A MISTAKE ONLINE : THEOLOGY AND DOCTRINE
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
'The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
OCTOBER 12, 2017 Abp.Guido Pozzo cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology since Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture for him with invisible cases being visible : SSPX priests must correct his error eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/abpguido-pozzo-… OCTOBER 10, 2017 Vatican doctrinal error could not have been made clearer : Lefebvre, Feeney censure based on the false premise eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/vatican-doctrin… _____________________________________
