Wednesday, August 6, 2014

I do not use an irrational inference, a false premise, so there is no discontinuity between Vatican II and Tradition



1
The Franciscans of the Immaculate say thre is a discontinuity between Vatican Council II and Tradition tradition.

Lionel:
Yes, for the Franciscans of the Immaculata Second Vatican Council, is a break with tradition. So they reject the Second Vatican Council and support Tradition.
Fr.Fidenzio Volpi and the Vatican Curia also claim that Vatican II is a break with tradition. They accept Vatican II as a rupture and reject aspects of the tradition such as the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.  


Instead for you there is no discontinuity .So if the Franciscans of the Immaculate issued a declaration saying there is no discontuinity between Vatican Council II and Tradition and they accept a continuity with Tradition may be the Apostolic Commissioner would be removed?
Lionel:
You are right I argue that there is no discontinuity between Vatican II and Tradition.
I say so because I do not use an irrational inference, a false premise, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Vatican Curia use this irrational premise.For both of them the Second Vatican Council is a break with tradition.
 
 
Instead it is argued that there is no discontinuity, and that if the Franciscans understtood that there is no discontinuity between Vatican Council II and Tradition and issue a declaration, accepting the continuity of both, then perhaps, the Commissioner may be removed.


Lionel:
Yes, there is no discontinuita. When the Franciscans of the Immaculate realize this, they could affirm the Second Vatican Council and also Tradition. We can affirm a traditional Second Vatican Council and a traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Then the Apostolic Commissioner cannot say that the Franciscans of the Immaculate have not accepted Vatican Council II.Instead the Franciscans of the Immaculate can ask Fr.Fidenzio Volpi to affirm Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
 3 
What are the points of continuity between Vatican II and Tradition

Lionel:
The main point of continuity between Vatican II and Tradition is Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door-Ad. Gentes 7
Vatican Council II,Ad Gentes 7 says that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc. need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. Without 'faith and baptism' they are oriented towards Hell. The majority of people on earth are non Catholics. They are oriented towards Hell without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

Christians (Protestant, etc.) have the baptism of water, but do not have Catholic faith. Catholic Faith includes the moral and faith teachings and also Sacraments.They are oriented to Hell without Catholic Faith. Ad Gentes 7 and in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition in general.

Here are the three defined dogmas on the Internet.

Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (1302), 
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441)
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus 






What does the Franciscans of the Immaculate believe which are not in continuity with Tradition?

Lionel: The Franciscans of the Immaculate believe that Vatican II is a break with Tradition.This is not true. The Second Vatican Council(without the irrational premise)  is traditional. The Second Vatican Council II with the false premise is a break with Tradition.





What are the points in which they believe, mistakenly, which makes the Second Vatican Council not in continuity with Tradition.


Lionel:
They assume Non-Catholics (Hindus etc.) are saved with the baptism of desire (Mystici Corporis), 'invincible ignorance' (Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II) and these cases  are physically visible to us.They assume that those non Catholics who are saved with the   'seeds of the Word' (Ad Gentes 11, Vatican Council II ), 'a ray of that Truth which enlighten's all men' (Nostra Aetate 2, the Second Vatican Council) refer to cases visible on earth. So these  deceased in Heaven  are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is an irrational premise.

They assume that those saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3) , with 'elements of sanctification and of truth' (Lumen Gentium 8) etc are physically visible to us on earth.They are seen in the flesh. They would have to be physically visible for tthe Franciscans of the Immaculate, for them to be exceptions to the dogma on salvation, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

So Vatican II contradicts Tradition for the Franciscans of the Immaculate since they consider salvation in Heaven as physically visible on earth. This is a fundamental error.


FREE FFI

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/the-imprisonment-of-the-ffi-continues/

6.

What do you mean by rational premise


Lionel: 
A premise is a statement that results in a conclusion.In other words, the premise is an assumption that something is true. Aristotle stated that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion.

For example: 
Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal.
It is tacitly said that Socrates is a man. The reasoning is fully expressed thus:
Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal. In this example, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.
The proof of a conclusion depends on the truth of the premise.
This is an example of a rational premise.Our reason tells us that all men are mortal and Socrates refers to a man.



7  

what do you mean by an irrational premise ?

Lionel:

A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true... Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion...
For example:Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal.
It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:Because all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.-Wikipedia
 
An irrational premise is a statement which is not true and not real. 

For example: 
Premise:
All men are cats.

Conclusion: 
Socrates is a man.

So Socrates is a cat.

The proof of a conclusion depends on the truth of the premise. In this example, the premise is irrational and fantasy.
 


8.
In what context do the Pope and the current times place the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Lionel: In the present time the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected. Since it is believed that the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council (1965), have contradicted the dogma. So now there is salvation outside the Church. Everyone does not have to be an official member of the Church Catholic for salvation, with the baptism of water.






 

 9.

Who or what created the confusion / error on this dogma?

Lionel: 
What has created the confusion?
The confusion was created when it was assumed that non-Catholics saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are physically visible to us on earth. It was mistakenly believed that the dead, who are now in heaven, can be seen on earth. It was inferred unknowingly that these deceased are still personally known on earth, to be exceptions.
There was no distinction made between invisible and visible cases.There was confusion between what is hypothetical and only accepted as a possibility and what is objective, a reality .There was confusion between the concepts de jure (in principle) and de facto (de facto, in reality, in fact).

Who created the confusion?
The confusion came into the Catholic Church with the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and with Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, to whom the Letter was issued. They were supported by the Superior General of the Jesuits in the United States and the Rector of the Jesuit Boston College.They were also supported by the secular media in the United States. They all assumed that the visible-dead were explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was understood for centuries.

The error was  promoted by Fr.Karl Rahner SJ. He put the Letter of the Holy Office in the Denzinger Enchiridion.

The Letter has not been signed and approved  by the Secretary of the Holy Office.It did  not have the seal of the Holy Office. It was an inter-office communication between bishops.
Fr.Rahner placed the Letter of the Holy Office in the Denzinger and as a source of reference cited an American magazine! -Lionel Andrades


August 6, 2014

I do not use an irrational inference, a false premise, so there is no discontinuity between Vatican II and Tradition

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/i-do-not-use-irrational-inference-false.html#links
August 5, 2014

Non uso una inferenza irrazionale, una falsa premessa,non c'è discontinuità tra il Concilio Vaticano II e della Tradizione

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/non-uso-una-inferenza-irrazionale-una.html