The attention of the media, cardinals and the pope is on Amoris Laetitia. The reports say Amoris Laetitia is heresy. The four popes and the scholars supporting the dubbia suggest heresy exists in Amoris Laetitia but will not state that Pope Francis is in heresy.
They are all ignoring a philosophical mistake which is there as a theme in Vatican Council II.It has created a new theology.It makes Vatican Council II a rupture with the past.It is heretical.This is a bigger issue than Amoris Laetitia.We Catholics are not obliged to accept the heresy of the magisterium.Today they still choose the false premise when they have a rational option.
When this false theology is avoided the Council is no more a break with Tradition and is no more heretical.This leaves the magisterium with its irrational interpretation, still heretical.They are not willing to correct themself.
The cardinals and the popes are still interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrational premise which creates a non traditional conclusion.They seem unaware of the choice or they just want to maintain the status quo.
They are unaware that it is the present magisterium, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is in unbelievable heresy.Or they want to let it remain like this since it is acceptable to the political Left.
Catholics could ask Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). The cardinals, bishops and priests at the CDF will not do so!
Poltiically they do not have permission.When Edward Pentin asked them about extra ecclesiam nulla salus Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma.Pope Benedict XVI did the same in the Avvenire interview. This is the official policy of the CDF.
They interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16, etc referring to visible cases in 2016 while for me LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases in the present times. So for me they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I can affirm Vatican Council II in harmony witha the the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries(I am an ordinary layman).
The two popes and the CDF will oppose this interpretation even though it is rational and traditional.
This is a real doctrinal mess in which we are in and the error can be seen clearly in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia di Eucaristia and other 'magisterial' documents.Cardinal Ratzinger used the irrational premise to create an inference which is a rupture with the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology which depended upon EENS.
This is an objective error which creates heresy and no one is talking about it.
There are professors of philoosphy at the Legion of Christ university in Rome with whom I have been in contact with. They will not answer basic questions and are telling each other to also not answer them.These are priests! They are afraid of losing their job.
Even the Dean of Theology at UPRA Fr.Edward McNamara L.C will not comment. Neither will the new Dean of Theology, an American,comment on the philosophical error, which he is forced to teach by a magisterium in heresy.
Priests from other congregations recognise that there is an error but do not want to be quoted.
It's a sensitive issue even for the SSPX priests. Just imagine it, the Council Fathers, including Archbishop Lefebvre met and discussed so many things of the faith, and their conclusion, the Council text was based on bad philosophy, and non Catholic philosophical reasoning.This could not be work of the Holy Spirit.
Since in principle the Council Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetcal Even Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked it.For him the invisible case of the baptism of desire was a known exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.These mistakes are all over Vatican Council II .
How can invisible people be known exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church in 2016 for salvation? How can people in Heaven be exceptions to EENS on earth? How can we judge that someone will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church? How can possibilities be defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS? The Council Fathers at Vatican Council II did not discuss these questions.
This is a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X where it affirms traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is a also a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X when it affirms being saved in invincible ignorance.This Catechism does not state or infer that being saved in invincible ignorance refers to known cases in the present times. The wrong inference was made in Vatican Council II.
Imagine a major Church Council making wrong inference as a theme. This was Vatican Council II.The secret is out and no one wants to talk about it.
December 26, 2016