Thursday, February 25, 2016

LG 14 was a Level 4 error in Vatican Council II

General Congregation meeting at the Second Vatican Council. File photo courtesy Catholic News Service.The Church made a big mistake in 1949. It was an objective error and it was magisterial. No one wanted to correct it. Or no one dared correct it.So it was easily placed in Vatican Council II. It still is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
Since then the Church focus' on Jesus for salvation and not on the necessity of membership in the Church. This was a big break with centuries of traditional teaching on salvation ( soteriology) and our understanding  of the Church as a means of salvation ( ecclesiology).
It was such a big break and it was all done with a simple little trick. It was a kind of  flim flam action. It was so stupid and fantastic that it is hard to believe that they actually got away with it all.
The popes, cardinals and bishops, all did not notice it.However thousands of Catholics did notice that something important had been changed in the Church though they could not put their finger on the exact cause. They blamed Vatican Council II in general and thousands of priests and nuns lost their vocation and returned to the lay state.
This was not the fruit of Vatican Council II as the traditionalists make us understand. False. The cause was the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which got past even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The SSPX bishops were so much against 'Feeneyism' as was the liberal Left that they did not realise that in the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was the answer to the Great Deception in the Catholic Church. The official- new innovation, the new direction the Church was now to take was based on an irrationality, a false premise and  inference, used to create a new conclusion, a non traditional conclusion.The big break with the past.
We can sniff this  big break in Lumen Gentium 14 (LG 14). Since in LG 14 not only is  a hypothetical case a break with the Feeneyite dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), but is the conclusion of a false premise and inference creating a fantastic new doctrine.It is an error at stage 4. It is fantastic since the error has its base in fantasy, a non reality.
When Lumen Gentium 16 mentions someone saved in invincible ignorance it is not a problem.Since it is a hypothetical case.We do not have to assume it is an explicit case.So it not a known exception to all needing to enter the Church.However a hypothetical case can be placed in Vatican Council II along side an orthodox statement on salvation, or in relation to the dogma EENS.This has been done.This could be done out of confusion or to confuse others.Anyway we can designate it as Level 1.
If someone assumes LG 16 refers to a person saved without the baptism of water, this is stage 2 in the error.Level 2 refers to an invisible case being visible and excludes the baptism of water.  There is a premise of a person saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water and that it was  physically visible to human beings.This is stage 3 of the error.It is knowing (with a fantasy element) that an invisible case is visible.
With stage 3 of the error Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional interpretation of EENS. There are MANY stage 3 examples in Vatican Council II e.g 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3), is a hypothetical case, allegedly without the baptism of water and it  is physically visible. This is how it is interpreted in fantasy theology, a new theology.
However LG 14 's 'those who know' is at Level 4.It goes a step further.

Level 1. A hypothetical case is placed in Vatican Council II.Since in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 a hypothetical case was considered explicit, objectively visible and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It begins with the FALSE PREMISE ( People in Heaven are visible to us on earth).

Level 2 . The hypothetical case excludes the baptism of water. If someone assumes LG 16 refers to a person saved without the baptism of water, this is stage 2 in the error.Level 2 refers to an invisible case being visible and it excludes the baptism of water.FALSE PREMISE ( People in Heaven are visible to us on earth and they can be seen or known without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church).

Level 3 . There is a premise of a person saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water and being physically visible to us human beings.FALSE INFERENCE ( So it is inferred  that these cases being visible and known in the present times are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church, for salvation.It is 'knowing' ( with the fantasy, supernatural element) that an invisible case is visible.Then it is posited as an exception to the dogma EENS.

Level 4 . It infers  that  there are exceptions in general to the dogma EENS.Since there are known exceptions to EENS ( even though there really are no known cases) it FURTHER concludes that IN GENERAL not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church.

The error begins with the 1949 Boston Letter. It suggests that a person being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire or blood is an exception to the dogma EENS.So every one in those times (1949) did not need to enter the Church. Familiar stuff. Here begins the problem.
Since a person can be saved 'in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of his own'(a hypothesis) and this case is physically known,physically visible ( stage 1), and it excludes the baptism of water (2) this case is an explicit exception to the dogma EENS (3) and so every one does not need to formally enter the Church for salvation in the present times.( Stage 3).
Since there is allegedly a known case of a person saved in inculpable ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church , it is said that only those who are not in invincible ignorance and who instead, know about the Church and Jesus, only they need to enter the Church and not non Catholics in general.Non Catholics in general it is inferred do not need to enter the Church. This was the big one! This was level 4. The topper. They created a new doctrine based on a stupidity.
They began with the false premise and inference (1 and 2 ) .They concluded that there was now an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS). They concluded there were exceptions in general(4) to the dogma on exclusive salvation.Then FURTHER it was concluded that IN GENERAL not every one needs  to enter the Church but only those who know.Wow.From a particular irrational hypothesis they made a new rule.
This is the factual error in Vatican Council II. It is a doctrinal error, an innovation based on an irrational premise and inference to create a wrong conclusion.
Related image
This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit cannot teach error and the Holy Spirit cannot reject the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries.

Damage control now requires us  to simply accept LG 14 as referring to a hypothetical case.So it is not an explicit exception to the old ecclesiology, as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center, as it was taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier,  the popes and Church Councils.

In this way Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14, NA 4) does not contradict the Church Councils which defined EENS, instead it supports Feeneyite EENS. Vatican Council II does not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine and the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma.The Church's teachings on the need for Jews and Protestants to convert with Catholic Faith is still there.

So it is important to identify the error in Vatican Council II and then to avoid it. It is the difference between Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to EENS)  and Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to EENS and they exclude the baptism of water).

We lay people must interpret Vatican Council II with Feneeyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS, we do not know any one who does not know about Jesus and the Church and who will be saved or has already been saved.These are theoretical possibilities known only to God if they exist. There is nothing concrete here.

So all the natives in Goa, India were on the way to Hell before St. Francis Xavier baptised them.In general all need the baptism of water for salvation and those natives did not have it. If any of the natives were saved without the baptism of water ( as some postulate) it would not be known to us human beings.So it is not an exception or relevant to the general rule i.e all need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG14) for salvation.

Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) tells us that the majority of people are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism. The dogma EENS says the same. This is the magisterial teaching of the Church according to Vatican Council II and  Sacred Tradition.
This however is not the teaching of the contemporary magisterium of persons who form the Vatican Curia. Nor is this  the doctrine of the traditionalists associated in some way with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. -Lionel Andrades

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing (This is a Level 4 error) that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*)  (Level 1 hypothetical case is placed here ,which is not relevant to the orthodox passage above, which supports EENS. It could be inferred that it excludes the baptism of water. It could be wrongly inferred to be an exception to EENS. )  All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. (Levels 1, 2 and 3 are here.Being saved with the baptism of desire or blood, allegedly without the baptism of water has nothing to do with EENs. Since they are 'zero cases' in our reality, they are invisible to us. )  With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

Photo from