Saturday, October 22, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visible

atila sinke guimaraesImage result for Roberto dei Mattei  PhotoAtila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote their books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visible and that these objectively visible cases, were mentioned in Vatican Council II and they were objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted in the 16th century.
So they both rejected Vatican Council II as being a break with Tradition after using this irrational premise and conclusion of which they were not aware of  and nor were corrected by the contemporary magisterium.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 16( saved in invincible ignorance) referred to someone known who was saved without the baptism of water in the present times, and so was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 8 refers to not invisiible but actually known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Otherwise why would Lumen Gentium 8 be an exception to the dogma on salvation ? So this is an exception to the old ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.So since there was known salvation outside the Church and ecumenism of return has exceptions.With this theology they are liberals.
For both of them Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to an objectively visible case, may be of a Protestant, Anglican or Lutheran, who is/was saved outside the visible limits of the Church.So outside the Church there is objecively known salvation for them.They both use the false premise to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.This is the new theology.It is being applied to Vatican Council II by them.
For me Vatican Council II is not a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, the three Church Councils which defined it and the many popes were affirmed it.I do not reject the baptism of desire etc. I just assume that they are invisiblle and hypothetical cases. If they happened they would only be known to God.
So I am affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS along with implicit and invisible for baptism of desire.Similarly being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water, for me, is an imaginary and hypothetical case. So it is irrelevant to Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objecitive mistake. An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
For me Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949 were in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were teaching orthodoxy, in as much as the present day traditionalists and sedevacantists, like the liberals, are affirming heresy, though unknowingly.
-Lionel Andrades
 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II: Guimaraes, Atila S.
October 21, 2016
Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/atila-s-guimaraes-was-ignorant-of-all.html

No comments: