Lionel:Nostra Aetate 2 is opposed to Tradition when it is inferred that ' a ray of the Truth' is VISIBLE and not INVISIBLE for us.
How can what is not seen on earth be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?.Similarly with 'subsistit it' (LG 8), invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc.They are all INVISIBLE for us.These cases are possibilities for us only.They are hypothetical only for us. They are known only to God.
Gherardini and Mattei whom I respect, do not make this distinction.Neither do the Vatican Curia or the Franciscans of the Immaculate ...
ABN:
and there is not one document of V2 that can be said to be binding for it chose to operate on a pastoral level; and, as pointed out by Msgr Brunero Gherardini, it never defined what Pastoral meant.
Lionel:
Monsgr. Gherardini interprets NA 2, UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) etc as referring to VISIBLE cases.Then obviously Vatican Council II will be non traditional and heretical.The Vatican is using the heretical interpretation in its pastoral approach. The fault is not with Vatican Council II per se.ABN:
There are no canons or decrees of V2 and at least one Prelate has admitted publicly that the documents were political compromises.
Lionel:
The Jewish Left supports Vatican Council II with the false inference. They interpret all salvation mentioned or alluded to, in the Council (NA 2 etc) as being VISIBLE for us.This was politically accepted AFTER Vatican Council II(1965).This is how the media interpreted it.The same error of a VISIBLE baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.The baptism of desire is INVISIBLE for us. It has nothing to do with the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
ABN:
The content of D.H. can not be reconciled with the content of Doctrine prior to V2 as the great Thomist Msgr pointed-out.
Lionel:
and there is not one document of V2 that can be said to be binding for it chose to operate on a pastoral level; and, as pointed out by Msgr Brunero Gherardini, it never defined what Pastoral meant.
Lionel:
Monsgr. Gherardini interprets NA 2, UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) etc as referring to VISIBLE cases.Then obviously Vatican Council II will be non traditional and heretical.The Vatican is using the heretical interpretation in its pastoral approach. The fault is not with Vatican Council II per se.ABN:
There are no canons or decrees of V2 and at least one Prelate has admitted publicly that the documents were political compromises.
Lionel:
The Jewish Left supports Vatican Council II with the false inference. They interpret all salvation mentioned or alluded to, in the Council (NA 2 etc) as being VISIBLE for us.This was politically accepted AFTER Vatican Council II(1965).This is how the media interpreted it.The same error of a VISIBLE baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.The baptism of desire is INVISIBLE for us. It has nothing to do with the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
ABN:
The content of D.H. can not be reconciled with the content of Doctrine prior to V2 as the great Thomist Msgr pointed-out.
Lionel:
DH makes the distinction between a Catholic confessional state and a state with a secular Constitution.When we make this distinction when reading Dignitatis Humanae, the Council is traditional.The good Monsignor whom I have heard speak and whom I like, does not make these distinctions. The error is innocent.
ABN:
You can post links to yur blog arguing differently but ABS will take the word of men like Mattei and Msgrs like Gherardhini.
Lionel:
They are correct when they say that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.They are not aware however that the cause for the break was the use of an irrational inference; a false premise.They assumed that the dead-saved are living exceptions to Tradition. Omit this premise and Vatican Council II becomes as traditional as Mattei and Gherardini.
ABN:
O, and if you think you will get traction claiming that Bishop Schneider is, effectively, a material heretic, you are insane (ABS does not mean that in a bad way)
Lionel:
I appreciate what Bishop Schneider says about praying on the knees and avoiding communion in the hand.
However the good bishop says Vatican Council II is ' ambigous'. This indicates that there are exceptions in Vatican Council II, for him, to the dogma on salvation. If there are exceptions he infers that there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church, the dead are visible.
He is not aware of the INVISIBLE-VISIBLE distinction.The error is innocent and commonplace.
ABN:
You can post links to yur blog arguing differently but ABS will take the word of men like Mattei and Msgrs like Gherardhini.
Lionel:
They are correct when they say that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.They are not aware however that the cause for the break was the use of an irrational inference; a false premise.They assumed that the dead-saved are living exceptions to Tradition. Omit this premise and Vatican Council II becomes as traditional as Mattei and Gherardini.
ABN:
O, and if you think you will get traction claiming that Bishop Schneider is, effectively, a material heretic, you are insane (ABS does not mean that in a bad way)
Lionel:
I appreciate what Bishop Schneider says about praying on the knees and avoiding communion in the hand.
However the good bishop says Vatican Council II is ' ambigous'. This indicates that there are exceptions in Vatican Council II, for him, to the dogma on salvation. If there are exceptions he infers that there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church, the dead are visible.
He is not aware of the INVISIBLE-VISIBLE distinction.The error is innocent and commonplace.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment