Pope Benedict did not want to be a martyr.In a subtle way with theology he changed the Catholic Church's teaching on mission.He used a false premise to create a new theology.His entire false theology is pegged on there being known salvation outside the Church.When in reality we do not know any such case.Theoretical possibilities for him were de facto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).This was already a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He did not correct it at Vatican Council II and neither after Vatican Council II when he was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Now Catholics use the false premise to reject the traditional understanding of mission.
Yesterday a traditionalist blogger asked me what about the Dismas, the Good Thief on the Cross.I told her that we do not know of any Dismas in 2017.She is using the reasoning of Pope Benedict and the 1949-Letter.Theoretical possibilities are examples of known salvation outside the Church. They are made exceptions to the dogma EENS.
In theory if there was a Dismas in our times who was saved he would only be known to God.Since the case would not be known to any one we can consider it an exception to the teaching on all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.Dismas in 2017 is not an exception. St.Emerentiana in 2017 is not an exception to EENS.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to EENS.
Then it is said that the popes and saints in the past had mentioned the baptism of desire.Again, they did not state that BOD refers to known people saved outside the Church.They did not state that it was a reference to visible instead of invisible cases.This is the wrong inference made by the liberal theologians including Cardinal Ratzinger.
Then they say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was disciplined for holding the strict interpretation of EENS.I agree that Cardinal Cushing made a mistake.Invisible baptism of desire was wrongly assumed to be a visible exception to the dogma EENS.Then Fr.Karl Rahner placed the 1949 Letter with the objective error, in the Denzinger.It is now considered magisterial by many.
So when in March 2016 Pope Benedict said that Vatican Council II suggests there is known salvation outside the Church for me this is the result of false reasoning.For me there is no known salvation outside the Church defacto and dejure, in reality and in theory.
Let me reiterate that I believe in the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church based on the past ecclesiology and I do not reject Vatican Council II. Instead I interpret Vatican Council II as not saying there is known salvation outside the Church.1
So when we read Vatican Council II it is important to read it without the 'double meaning'.Do not use the ambigous approach, in which the passages appear for and against orthodoxy.This is a sign that you are mixing up what is invisible as being visible, hypothetical as being concrete, unknown as being known. This would be the false reasoning of Pope Benedict.He did not want to become a martyr.So he left you in ignorance.
This is not an academic issue of the past but has a direct bearing on how we interpret Vatican Council II today I was telling the traditionalist blogger.Remember-for us humans there can no no known salvation outside the Church.
-Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 6, 2017
I reiterate my Catholic religious beliefs
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/i-reiterate-my-catholic-religious.html
DECEMBER 7, 2017
Pope Benedict in a subtle way with theology, has put an end to traditional mission.Pope Francis does the same bluntly and clearly
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/pope-benedict-in-subtle-way-with.html
Pope Benedict XVI means there is known salvation outside the Church when he states 'when they can be saved even without it?” '. He is a Cushingite. He assumes invisible cases are visible
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment