Vatican Council II riddled with philosphical error : two popes in principle support objective error in text

 

 The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church is due to the following points.It is important to understand them.Then the error in principle, which is hidden in Vatican Council II, can be detected.It is important to understand the following four points.

1.Rejecting the baptism of desire etc as being invisible and known only to God.

2.Assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in in invincible ignorance refer to known cases in the present times.

3.In principle assuming hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are objectively visible in the present times and then interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrationality.

4.Being unaware that this error of assuming the baptism of desire refers to visible instead of invisible cases.This error was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which assumed that the baptism of desire etc refers to visible cases. .This is an error of the magisterium. It was then repeated in Vatican Council II by the Council Fathers.

These following four points in philosophy must also be clear for you. Then you can detect the error in the passages of Vatican Council II.

1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it.This is a hypothetical case for us?

My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.

It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.

2.So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.

3.Would it violate the Principle of Non Contradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?

My answer Yes.

Since it is being assumed that something invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and known, someone who is not concrete and tangible it is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.

4.Similarly this case of a catechumen in the past too would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases?

My answer is YES.No could have physically seen this catechumen saved, in Heaven or on earth.

Once this concept is clear for you then you can analyse the errors in the text of Vatican Council II. There are many of them. 

 1949 ERROR PACKAGED IN VATICAN COUNCIL II

The magisterium made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr., Leonard Feeney.It inferred that the baptism of desire was relevant and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The cardinals wrongly inferred that there were known cases of the baptism of desire.

This mistake from 1949 was then incorporated into the text of Vatican Council II.I have cited some of the passages below.

The Council should not have mentioned the anonymous case of someone being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) or the unknown catechumen who has not yet received the baptism of water but had an intended to join the Church(before he died).They are 'zero cases' in our reality as John Martignoni, the apologist, has said.

Here are the 'zero cases' in Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintigratio.

ERRORS IN THE TEXT OF LUMEN GENTIUM
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II

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.-Lumen Gentium 14 ( emphasis added).

ERROR IN THE TEXT OF UNITATIS REDINTIGRATIO

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.-Unitatis Redintigratio 3,Vatican Council II.
This text above is mentioned in Vatican Council II since in principle it is assumed that there is known salvation outside the Church.In principle it was accepted by the Council Fathers that hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively known.They included people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
It is the same error seen in Lumen Gentium 16 and Lumen Gentium 14 above.
The following three passages, refer to 'zero cases'.They must be interpreted as being hypothetical. So they do not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They never did.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II
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.-Lumen Gentium 14 ( emphasis added).

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.-Unitatis Redintigratio 3,Vatican Council II.

Placing these passages in Vatican Council II was a mistake of the Council Fathers.They are superflous and irrelevant passages.They give the Council its ambiguity.

Most people are  not aware of this philosophical error in the Council text.It is an error in principle made by the theologians at Vatican Council II.

The same mistake is there in Nostra Aetate 2 ( good and holy people saved outside the Church), Lumen Gentium 8( invisible persons saved with elements of sanctification and truth), Ad Gentes 11( invisible and unknown cases in the present times of non Catholics saved with seeds of the Word) etc.

Vatican Council II is  riddled with this philosophical error.The norm was to assume invisible cases are visible. This then became the basis of the new theology, the Ratzinger-Rahner New Theology.

According to the New Theology there are known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, outside the Church. They are saved without 'faith and baptism'.

So we get this new doctrine in Lumen Gentium 14.It comes directly from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

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.-Lumen Gentium 14 ( emphasis added).

When interpreting Vatican Council II, it is important to  assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical. In this way we eliminate the New Theology and return to the old ecclesiology of the Church.It's simple.

Of course this error is human error and it cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality.

-Lionel Andrades

 

Feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe