Monday, July 11, 2016

Everyone in Heaven is Catholic - Michael Voris




Lionel: I agree with Michael Voris here.
However theologically there is no clarification from Church Militant TV(CMTV).Since for CMTV the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the view in an otherwise good Mic'd Up program on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus hosted by Christine Niles,with Michael Voris commenting from Rome.
CMTV accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says the baptism of desire etc,allegedly without the baptism of water,  are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, expressed well by Michael Voris here on this Vortex.
Michael has in the past however also said that 'every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Church'. Simon Rafe also supports this theological position of Michael Voris which is that of the liberals and traditionalists.
It is part of the new theology, based on a false premise, which makes the new theology contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
It is this new theology which is part of the CMTV interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So Vatican Council II would say for the CMTV team that all need to enter the Church (AG 7, LG 14) but some do not need to do so (LG 16. LG 14).Here LG 16, LG 14,for CMTV,  refer to explicit cases based on the false premise.
This would not be how I would interpret Vatican Council II. LG 16 and LG 14 would refer to hypothetical cases. So it would not be an exception to Michael Voris' understanding of salvation, as expressed clearly and directly in this Vortex.
So the Catechism of the Catholic Church for CMTV would say all need the baptism of water for salvation(CCC 1257) and it would also say contradictorily that God is not limited to the Sacraments, and so all do not need the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.This is an expression of the new theology.
For me CCC 1257 would not contradict itself as it does for CMTV, since we do not know any case in 2016 or in the past, of someone saved without the baptism of water because God is not limited to the Sacraments. So 'God is not limited to the Sacraments',for me, does not contradict Michael's clear presentation of Catholic salvation in this Vortex.
This new theology on salvation has a direct bearing on the liturgy.It influences are lex orandi, lex credendi and lex vivendi which Christine Niles  mentioned on the last Friday Download.It was  on the Sacred Liturgy and Cardinal Sarah's comments on the priest facing East and all communicants needing to kneel.

THEOLOGICAL CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Could CMTV theologically say that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood, and being saved in invincible ignorance, in 2016,with or without the baptism of water?
Also that there could be no such known case in the past for us human beings?
When the saints and the popes referred to the baptism of desire etc they were referring to invisible- for- them baptism of desire.There were no objective cases, seen in the flesh?
So the baptism of desire etc being invisible and not known in personal cases is not, and was not, an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
It means that the magisterium made a mistake in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it assumed hypothetical cases, are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Also mentioning these cases in Vatican Council II was a mistake.They are superfluous passages.
-Lionel Andrades



JULY 11, 2016


The Download—Restoring the Liturgy ( Why cannot this be lex credendi, lex orandi,lex vivendi for CMTV?)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/the-downloadrestoring-liturgy.html

Cardinal Sarah means the priest should face east,communicants kneel and all interpret Vatican Council II with a new premise which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and creates ' a new faith'

Cardinal Robert Sarah celebrates Mass in Haiti in 2010 (CNS)
Cardinal Sarah is saying that when you pray and believe during Mass interpret Vatican Council II with a theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and so creates ' a new faith' I mentioned in a previous blog post.

He is saying accept the error in the  second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text,since Vatican Council II does so.

He means in principle accept that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),since Vatican Council II has done so.

So it is ' a new faith' for Catholics during Mass since the 1950's.

THE METHOD,HOW IT WAS DONE
This is the way he approves ' a new faith' during Mass in all the rites.
He first starts with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,which is a foundational dogma for other doctrines of the Catholic Church.
He assumes there are known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, all needing faith and the baptism of water.He means there are objective cases of persons who are saved,who did not need faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.
This is the innovation. This is the new premise which he brings into the Church.
So there is lex orandi, lex credendi and lex vivendi with the use of this irrational premise.There is a new theology, based on this irrationality.It is a violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction.
He has a new theology which says every one needs to enter the Church but some people do not.He affirms the dogma EENS ,which does not mention any exceptions, and he also alleges that there are exceptions.
It is only be supposing that there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS, (even though there cannot be known cases of people saved without the baptism of waterin the Church) that he is able to present exceptions to the defined dogma which does not mention any exceptions.

VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION
So he will point out to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesam nulla salus, which is a defined dogma, and he will claim that he believes in it. At the same time he will allege that since there are known exceptions to the dogma; since there are known cases of non persons saved outside the Church, every one does not need to enter the Church.This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can it be said all need to enter but some do not.

NEW THEOLOGY BASED ON NEW PREMISE
It is with this new theology that he interprets Vatican Council II, as does Church Militant TV, the Latin Mass Society, Fr.Serafino Lanzetta F.I and the Franciscans of the Immaculate,the Remnant and Wanderer newspaper staff, the New Catechumenale Way and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the two popes.
This new theology is based on philosophical subjectivism i.e we can allegedly see and know personal cases of the baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance all without the baptism of water.This was the deadly premise which derailed traditional theology in the Catholic Church.

PREMISE IS FALSE
The premise is false.Since objectively we cannot judge or know who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.There are is no such case,in the past or present. We physically cannot meet any one as such on the streets. We cannot see any such person in 2016 with the naked eye. If such a case exists it would only be known to God.
So once this premise was accepted by the magisterium in the 1949 Fr. Leonard Feeney Case, it created a new salvation theology for the Church. This new salvation theology says there are objecive, personally known exceptions to the traditional understanding of EENS.So all do not need to enter the Church. So the 16th century missionaries salvation theology had become obsolete.
It was is this fantasy theology,being able to see people in Heaven without the baptism of water,  which violated the Principle of Non Contradiction and the Council Fathers accepted during Vatican Council II.The magisterium did not object.
Related image

MISTAKE IN COUNCIL TEXT
So Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) or the desire for the baptism of water of a hypothetical case of a catechumen(LG 14) based on the false premise of there being known  cases of persons in these two categories.This was a mistake in the text of Vatican Council.
Related image 

MISTAKE ALSO IN INTERPRETATION
There would be a further mistake in the interpretation, when Cardinal Sarah and every body else, assumes that LG 14( catechumen with a desire for the baptism of water) and LG 16( someone saved in invincible ignorance) refer to known cases in the present times, and so they are exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.
So cardinal Sarah would interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.Every one would not need to enter the Church for salvation.It is with this theology that there is a lex orandi, lex credendi and lex vivendi.
NEW FAITH WITH NEW PREMISE
Based on the new premise, which contradicts our understanding of reality( we humans in general cannot see people in Heaven) we now have ' a new faith' during Holy Mass.The Nicene Creed which says, 'I believe in one baptism( known) for the forgiveness of sins' now means 'I believe in three or more baptisms, without water.'They are the baptism of desire and blood, being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc'.The Athanasius Creed which begins and ends saying outside the Church there is no salvation,was put away with the new premise.
So when Cardinal Sarah says that the priest should face the East and communicants must kneel, he means this must be done at Mass where the priest and congregation,interpret Vatican Council II with a new theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and so creates ' a new faith'.
-Lionel Andrades


Cardinal Sarah is saying that when you pray and believe during Mass interpret Vatican Council II with a theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and so creates ' a new faith' http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/cardinal-sarah-is-saying-that-when-you.html



The Denial of Hell by Fr. François Xavier Schouppe, S.J.Fourth in a Series on Hell (from Radical Catholic)

http://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.it/2016/07/the-denial-of-hell.html

The Denial of Hell

Fourth in a Series on Hell

 by
 Fr. François Xavier Schouppe, S.J.

There are some miserable men 
- let us rather say, fools 
- who, in the delirium of their
 iniquity, make bold to
 declare that they laugh at hell. 
They say so, but only
 with their lips; their 
consciences protest and give
 them the lie.

Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois















Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois,
 famous for his impiety as
 much as for is sanguinary
 ferocity, was the chief 
author of the massacres of 
Lyons in 1793; he caused
 the destruction of at least
 1,600 individuals. Six 
years after, in 1799, he 
was banished to Cayenne,
and used to give vent
 to his infernal rage by 
blaspheming the holiest
 things. The least act of
 religion became the 
subject of his jests. Having 
seen a soldier make the 
sign of the cross, "Imbecile!"
 he said to him. "You still
 believe in superstition! Do 
you not know that God, the 
Holy Virgin, Paradise, Hell,
 are the inventions of the 
accursed tribe of priests?" 
Shortly after, he fell sick
 and was seized by violent
 pains. In an access of fever
 he swallowed, at a single 
draught, a bottle of liquor.
 His disease increased; he
 felt as if burned by a 
fire that was devouring his
 bowels. He uttered frightful 
shrieks, called upon God, 
the Holy Virgin, a priest,
 to come to his relief. "Well,
 indeed," said the soldier to
 him, "you ask for a priest? 
You fear hell then? You used
 to curse the priests, make
 fun of hell! Alas!" He then
 answered: "My tongue was
 lying to my heart." Pretty
 soon, he expired, vomiting 
blood and foam.

The following incident 
happened in 1837. A young 
under-lieutenant, being in
 Paris, entered the Church 
of the Assumption, near 
the Toilers, and saw 
a priest kneeling near 
a confessional. As he made
 religion the habitual subject
 of his jokes, he wished 
to go to confession to while
 away the time, and 
went into the confessional.
 "Monsieur l'abbé," he said,
 "would you be good
 enough to hear my 
confession?" "Willingly my
 son; confess unrestrained."
 "But I must first say that I
 am a rather unique kind of
 a sinner." "No matter; the
 sacrament of penance
 has been instituted for all
 sinners." "But I am not 
very much of a believer
 in religious matters." 
"You believe more than 
you think." "Believe? I? 
I am a regular scoffer." 
The confessor saw with 
whom he had to deal,
 and that there was 
some mystification. He 
replied, smiling: "You 
are a regular scoffer? 
Are you then making
 fun of me, too?" The 
pretended penitent smiled 
in like manner. "Listen," 
the priest went on, "what
 you have just done here
 is not serious. Let us leave
 confession aside; and, if
 you please, have a little 
chat. I like military people
 greatly; and, then, you 
have the appearance of a 
good, amiable youth. Tell
 me, what is your rank?"
 "Under-lieutenant." "Will
 you remain an under-lieutenant
 long?" "Two, three, perhaps
 four years." "And after?"
 "I shall hope to become
 a lieutenant?" "And after?"
 "I hope to become a captain."
 "And after?" "Lieutenant-colonel?"
 "How old will you be then?"
 "Forty to forty-five years."
 "And after that?" "I shall 
become a brigadier general."
 "And after?" "If I rise higher, 
I shall be general of a 
division." "And after?" 
"After! there is nothing
 more except the Marshal's
 baton; but my pretensions 
do not reach so high." "Well 
and good. But do you intend
 to get married?" "Yes,
 when I shall be a superior 
officer." "Well! There 
you are married; a superior
 officer, a general, perhaps 
even a French marshal, who 
knows? And after?" "After? 
Upon my word, I do not know 
what will be after."
"See, how strange it is!" said 
the abbé. Then, in a tone
 of voice that grew more sober:
 "You know all that shall
 happen up to that point,
 and you do not know what 
will be after. Well, I know,
 and I am going to tell you.
 After, you shall die, be judged,
 and, if you continue to live
 as you do, you shall be 
damned, you shall go and 
burn in hell; that is what 
will be after."

As the under-lieutenant, 
dispirited at this conclusion,
 seemed anxious to steal away:
 "One moment, sir," said the 
abbé. "You are a man of honor. 
So am I. Agree that you have 
offended me, and owe me an
 apology. It will be simple.
 For eight days, before retiring
to rest, you will say: 'One day
 I shall die; but I laugh at the
 idea. After my death I shall 
be judged; but I laugh at the
 idea. After my judgment,
 I shall be damned; but I laugh
 at the idea. I shall burn 
forever in hell; but I laugh 
at the idea!' That is all. But 
you are going to give me 
your word of honor not to 
neglect it, eh?" More and more 
wearied, and wishing, at any
 price, to extricate himself 
from this false step, the 
under-lieutenant made the 
promise. In the evening, his 
word being given, he began
 to carry out his promise.
 "I shall die," he says. "I shall
 be judged." He had not the
 courage to add: "I laugh at
 the idea." The week had not 
passed before he returned
 to the Church of the Assumption, 
made his confession seriously,
 and came out of the confessional 
his face bathed with tears,
 and with joy in his heart.

A young person who had 
become an unbeliever
 in consequence of her 
dissipation, kept incessantly
 shooting sarcasm at religion,
 and making jests of its most
 awful truths. "Juliette," some
 one said to her one day, "this
 will end badly. God will be 
tired of your blasphemies, and
 you shall be punished." "Bah,"
 she answered insolently. 
"It gives me very little trouble.
 Who has returned from the 
other world to relate what
 passes there?" Less than eight
 days after she was found in her
 room, giving no sign of life, and
 already cold. As there was no 
doubt that she was dead, she 
was put in a coffin and buried.
 The following day, the 
grave-digger, digging a new 
grave beside that of the 
unhappy Juliette, heard some
 noise, it seemed to him that 
there was a knocking in the 
adjoining coffin. At once, he
 puts his ear to the ground,
 and in fact hears a smothered 
voice, crying out: "Help! help!"
 The authorities were summoned;
 by their orders, the grave was 
opened, the coffin taken up and
 unnailed. The shroud is 
removed; there is no further doubt,
 Juliette was buried alive. Her
 hair, her shroud were in disorder,
 and her face was streaming with 
blood. While they are releasing 
her, and feeling her heart to be 
assured that it still beats, she 
heaves a sigh, like a person for a
 long time deprived of air; then
 she opens her eyes, makes an 
effort to lift herself up, and 
says: "My God, I thank thee." 
Afterward, when she had got
 her senses well back, and 
by the aid of some food, 
recovered her strength, she
 added: "When I regained 
consciousness in the grave 
and recognized the frightful
 reality of my burial, when
 after having uttered shrieks,
 I endeavored to break my
 coffin, and struck my forehead
 against the boards, I saw that 
all was useless; death appeared 
to me with all its horrors; it was 
less the bodily than the eternal
 death that frightened me. 
I saw I was going to be damned.
 My God, I had but too well 
deserved it! Then I prayed, 
I shouted for help, I lost
 consciousness again, until 
I awoke above ground. O,
 goodness of my God!" she
 said, again shedding tears, 
"I had despised the truths 
of faith; thou hast punished
 me, but in thy mercy, I am 
converted and repentant."

They who deny hell will be 
forced to admit it soon; but 
alas! it will be too late.


[The following video contains a Lenten retreat sermon
 delivered by a traditional Catholic priest on the subject
 of Heaven and Hell.]










http://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.it/2016/07/the-denial-of-hell.html

Cardinal Sarah is saying that when you pray and believe during Mass interpret Vatican Council II with a theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and so creates ' a new faith'


(8:26) He ( Cardinal Sarah)  is not saying junk Vatican Council II- Bradley Eli, Church Militant TV.


Lionel: Cardinal Sarah is saying that when you pray and believe during Mass interpret Vatican Council II with a theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction amd so creates ' a new faith'.


He is saying accept the error in the  second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text,since Vatican Council II does so.

He is saying that in principle accept that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS),since Vatican Council II has done so.

He is saying assume that those saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases  saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). So Lumen Gentium 14 tells us only those persons need to enter the Church for salvation, who know about the Jesus and the Church.In other words who are not in invincible ignorance.Here we have a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II based on an irrational premise.The Council Fathers erred.This is how Cardinal Sarah wants us to interpret Vatican Council II at Mass, even though there is a rational and traditional choice.
He is not saying the lay man should receive the Eucharist on his knees and the priest should face east during the Mass and affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS in line with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

He is not saying to reject the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and accept only the first part, since the Council Fathers and the magisterium in Rome since the 1949 had made a mistake.

He is not saying that assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.Do not make the mistake of the Council Fathers who assumed hypothetical cases were explicit. So they concluded that there was salvation outside the Church.

Cardinal Sarah did not say that a Catholic's ecclesiology during Mass , should be Feeneyite and not Cushingite.

He is not saying that Vatican Council II has 
erred.It overlooked a factual error and then built a fantasy theology upon it, to reject Tradition.The objective error indicates that this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Council with the Cushingite theology is the work of human error and it has changed the understanding of the people during Mass, on what does the Catholic Church still teach.
-Lionel Andrades

The Download—Restoring the Liturgy ( Why cannot this be lex credendi, lex orandi,lex vivendi for CMTV?)



6:22. Lex orandi, Lex credendi, Lex vivendi.The law of prayer is the law of belief the law of life.How you pray,and Mass  is the highest form of prayer, affects how you believe which affects how you live.It has a profound effect..-Christine Niles

Cardinal Robert Sarah celebrates Mass in Haiti in 2010 (CNS)

At the Church Militant TV chapel they kneel and receive the Eucharist with reverance on the  tongue  and theologically they know that outside the Catholic Church; outside its visible and formal structure,there is known salvation.Every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Church,said Michael Voris on a CMTV program. The baptism  of desire refers to explicit cases in 2016 and so it is an exception theologically to all needing to enter the Church. Every one does not need to visibly enter the Church, according to Michael Voris,  as they visibly entered the Ark of Noah to be saved from the deluge.

With the 'new faith' when you pray at Mass, know that every Protestant or atheist does not need to be a Catholic.Since there are 'known' cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc.May be you can bump into them on the streets of Detroits.Membership in the Catholic Church is not necessary.This seems like the law of belief is the law of prayer and how you live and proclaim the Faith on CMTV and other places.
We now have the Anonymous Christian theology at CMTV.It is the approved faith, the approved liberal belief-system at the Traditional Latin Mass or Mass in the vernacular.

When the SSPX accepts this 'new faith', this new law of belief, as they do at CMTV, they will be allowed to offer the Latin Mass with canonical status.But if they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism(theologically there are no explicit exceptions to EENS in 2016), they would be ideological.So there will be no canonical status.
There are traditionalists who are not ideological.The St. Benedict Center, Still River,M.A,USA  is the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney, in the diocese of Worcester,USA.They have full canonical status.This Catholic religious community, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, vaguely accepts and also criticizes Vatican Council II.Michael Voris and CMTV does the same.They interpret LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc  with the Cushingite irrationality i.e theologically invisible cases are visible, since his is the law life and nature, practically, in real life for them. What is implicit must be considered explicit.The magisterium wants the SSPX to also interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism( which they are already doing) and to accept this interpretation( which they are not doing).CMTV is meeting all these liberal standards of Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi, Lex Vivendi( in this order).

No Catholic community, according to the Vatican and the Jewish Left rabbis, can affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Michael Voris does not dare do so.
Feeneyism( there are no explicit exceptions to EENS, nothing in Vatican Council II can contradict EENS) supports the traditional ecclesiology, the 'triumphalistic ecclesiology'.Even with the triumphalistic ecclesiology there can be a lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.

This ecclesiology is  rational.Yet No priest who offers the TLM or the Novus Ordo Mass is  opposing Cushingism and supporting Feeneyism in public- not even priests of the SSPX.Not even the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Centers.Nor the CMTV Download.

LEX CREDENDI FOR ME

When I attend Holy Mass common sense tells me that there cannot be known salvation outside the Church.I cannot see someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.I cannot meet someone who is going to be saved in invincible ignorance and without Catholic faith.This is something obvious.So when I pray during Mass I know, I must pray for all non-Catholics  who are oriented to Hell.They need to enter the Church with physically visible baptism of water and Catholic teachings which can be learnt and checked visibly. This is my idea of 'Church', when I attend Mass.It is  based on the Bible and the traditional interpretations of John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Matt.7:13-14 etc.
Why cannot this be lex credendi, lex orandi,lex vivendi for CMTV?I know most people are oriented to the fires of Hell  for all time, since they did not accept the mercy of God, by entering or remaining in the Catholic Church.They need to enter the only Church of God.They must follow the traditional teachings.They must reject innovations including new theologies.1
-Lionel Andrades



1.
Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II as does the St.Benedict Center,Still River in the diocese of Worcester,USA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/vatican-curia-wants-sspx-to-accept.html

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Joseph Shaw need to correct themself and then they will have a new perspective on the Council : new theology violates the Principle of Non Contradiction

Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph Shaw need to correct themself and then they will have a new perspective on the Council.

When they assume there are exceptions to the dogma EENS, as does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, they infer that there are personally known people in the present times ( 2016) who are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.So they are saying that every one needs to enter the Church but some people do not. Every one needs to be a Catholic for salvation, since this is the dogmatic teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and EENS but some people do not(like those in invincible ignorance etc).This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The new theology violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. This can be seen in the Letter(1949) where the second part of the Letter is Cushingite and contradicts the first part ( Feeneyite).
It can can be seen in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation but some do not ( invincible ignorance etc).

HOLY SPIRIT TEACH ERROR?
There are passages in Vatican Council II which are orthodox on salvation and these passages are followed by ambigous passages based on Cushingism and the new theology.So we now have 'a new faith', based on a violation of simple reasoning and philosophy.It contradicts Aristotles Principle of Non Contradiction.It has been approved in Vatican Council II.How can this error be the teaching of the Holy Spirit? 1
-Lionel Andrades


1.
July 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 5

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_25.html


This is the first Council which has erred on such a grand scale.They overlooked a factual error and then built a whole new fantasy theology upon it, to reject Tradition.The objective error indicates that this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Council with the Cushingite theology is the work of human error or even diabolical intervention.

ERROR IN VATICAN COUNCIL II


1.The Second Vatican Council II has erred when it accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text.
2.It has erred when in principle it accepted that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
3.It has erred when it assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases,known persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). So Lumen Gentium 14 says only those persons need to enter the Church for salvation, to avoid Hell, who know about the Jesus and the Church.In other words who are not in invincible ignorance.Here we have a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II based on an irrational premise.The Council Fathers erred.
They also rejected the dogma EENS which says all need to enter the Church. They have also contradicted Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. AG 7 does not say there are exceptions when it refers to all.
__________________________

July 10, 2016
Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw.html




Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -2 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_10.html


Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -3 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_5.html


Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 4

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_70.html



Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 5 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_25.html