Sunday, April 8, 2018

Meeting of Conservative Catholics in Rome Addresses Concern About Church’s Course

"Dubia" Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller spoke at the event under the title "Catholic Church, where are you going?" - Conference Participants: Debate on the Admission of the Sacraments to the Divorced, its Danger to Faith, and Unity of the Church

Rome ( Cardinals and conservative Catholics have expressed concern over the Church's course at a meeting in Rome. At the event titled "Catholic Church, where are you going?" On Saturday, alongside Cardinals Raymond Leo Burke and Walter Brandmüller, others included Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider from Astana, Kazakhstan, and Italian philosopher and politician Marcello Pera.

At the conclusion, they issued a statement calling the debate on allowing remarried divorced people to the sacraments a threat to the faith and unity of the church. Anyone who enters into a new civil marriage in an existing church marriage bond is "in objective contradiction to the law of God" and can not participate in communion.

In his contribution Cardinal Brandmüller warned against equating public opinion with the "sense of the faithful.”  To truly be considered a Catholic voice, a call for holiness. In the history of Christianity, true believers were often a minority, according to the emeritus president of the Pontifical Committee for the Study of History.

Cardinal Burke, former Prefect of the Supreme Church Court of the Apostolic Signature, emphasized that the Pope's teaching authority derived from his obedience to Christ. The Pope could only interpret the law of the Church to the extent of its actual  meaning but not to undermine it.

Auxiliary Bishop Schneider identified ignorance or contempt for the truth as the cause of numerous grievances. Throughout history, the devil has even darkened the papal magisterium temporarily and created confusion in the Church. Every Pope must be aware that he is not the "owner of the Institute of Truth" but only its servant.

Brandmüller and Burke had in November 2016 together with the deceased Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Carlo Caffarra published the so-called "Dubia" ("Doubt"); In it they asked Pope Francis to clarify some points in his letter "Amoris laetitia" on marriage and family. This request, which is supported by one million Catholics, was "not heard yet today," it said in the statement distributed on Saturday.

Trans: Tancred


Ana Milan said...

Endless words without action is of no use in restoring the Bride of Christ to her former glory. When St. Paul confronted St. Peter he didn't ask or require permission to do so - he went ahead and did it, & St. Peter showed much humility in accepting the criticism. False obedience to a heretic via canon law is not going to get the necessary job done. Even people of no faith recognise that PF is a heretic & best removed. What in God's name is preventing this from happening? I really hope these prelates have no skeletons themselves in their cupboards, but even if they do they must relinquish personal pride & put on the mantle of humility & deal with the aftermath. That is what Cardinals are called to do.

Catholic Mission said...


All the speakers and participants at this conference accept the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) which states ' that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member '.
None of them in public would affirm Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They will not defend EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
So since there is alleged known salvation outside the Church for the present liberal Magisterium, there is the new ecumenism and 'it is not always required' that one is 'incorporated into the Church actually as a member', for salvation.
This is the LOHO reasoning based on invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I being defacto and visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, even when there are no such cases in our reality.This error is the main cause of the doctrinal confusion in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

The Profession of Faith or Declaration of the Conference would be supported by Pope Francis and his liberal cardinals.
However it is good that the Conference has repeated for all of us the teachings of the Church on morals give them credit for this. But the real doctrinal issue is on salvation.
Let the speakers at the Conference affirm Feeneyite EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then ask Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and the liberal cardinals to do the same ?

Here is where we will see cardinals openly opposing Catholic doctrine and wanting to maintain the confusion in the Church -Lionel

Catholic Mission said...

his insistence on the entire Church reappropriating the reforms and renewal mandated by Vatican II,
Lionel: This is where the Conference speakers are in ignorance.
There was no reform or renewal mandated by VC 2 unless you use a false premise to interpret the Council and so get a conclusion which is a rupture with Tradition. This is the only interpretation the Conference speakers seem to know.

Tancred said...

Except the rupture is the one which is implemented for the most part.

Catholic Mission said...

Yes the interpretation of Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology is the norm for the traditionalists and the Magisterium. When are the Conferences going to say that there is another way to interpret Vatican Council II and it is in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors, the past ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return -and it is rational.-Lionel

Tancred said...

The problem is that its statements on religious liberty and ambiguity ARE a break with tradition.

JBQ said...

"Lest we forget". This issue is one of what is the will of God and not of the will of man. God gave us the natural law as a parameter. Holy Scripture is the Word of God. Tradition is only history to be sure but has always been based on Scripture. If you throw out Scripture, then you have "free fall". That appears to be exactly what is happening.

Tancred said...

Indeed, there are a lot of parts in V2 that have no scriptural or traditional foundation, but they do have a foundation in the canon of Freemasonic Liberalism.

Anonymous said...

This is an interpretation.All the traditionalists do not agree with you.
However we could begin with EENS.
Is Vatican Council II a rupture with EENS?

Tancred said...

Depends on which interpreter you’re talking about. VaticanII is a duck-rabbit, a simple drawing that could represent either animal depending on how its viewed. It can be read to satisfy a vile sodomy enabler like Weakland, or with a lot of difficulty and reservation, a Catholic like Cardinal Manning. I think Saint Athanasius would just reject it for what it is, a mealy statement written by a committee trying to cover its ass.

Catholic Mission said...

Is Vatican Council II a rupture with EENS?
This is crucial.
Since if there is no rupture with Feneeyite EENS then it means the old ecclesiology is intact.
If there is no rupture with the past ecclesiology then it means there still is an ecumenism of return. There can only be an ecumenism of returm.
Upon the past exlusivist ecclesiology was based the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King. The non separation of Church and State was a priority and in a papal state the form of religious liberty could be decided as in the past.

For me there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II. Since LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II and the baptism of desire etc in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refer to hypothetical cases only.

For Pope Benedict there is known salvation outside the Church, what about you?-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

How do the Conference speakers and the two popes interpret Scripture?
According to John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 every one needs faith and the baptism of water for slvation, every one needs to enter the community, the Early Church.Outside the Church there is no salvation.
But for the Conference speakers, for example outside the Church there is salvation. The baptism of desire refers to known people saved outside the Church.
LG 16 (invincible ignorance) refers to a known person, even when there are no such known person, saved outside the Church.
So how do you interpret Scripture ? Pope Benedict said in March 2016 that he interprets Scripture differently. It is not the same as the Missionaries in the 16th cemtury-Lionel

Catholic Mission said...

APRIL 9, 2018
The Conference could have also issued the following declaration with an appeal to the popes and cardinals to affirm doctrine
They could have issued a declaration saying the follows.
1. We affirm that invisible baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).To suggest that they are is irrational.
2.We affirm that we cannot meet or see any one in 2018 saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.So they are not practical exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.Neither were they exceptions to EENS in the past.No one could see someone in Heaven saved with BOD,BOB and I.I and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
3.So BOD, BOB and I.I are not , and never were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing were wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.The Magisterium was irrational.
4.So we can re-read Vatican Council II to understand that invisible and hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS or the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
5.With there being no known salvation outside the Church there are no exceptions to the past understanding of exclusivist salvation in the Church. Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past ecclesiology. So there can only be an ecumenism of return.
6.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church there can be no New Theology which was based on there being known salvation outside the Church.So all non Catholics and non Christians need to be members of the Catholic Church, with faith and baptism,to avoid Hell.
7.So there can only be an ecumenism of return, non Christians need to believe in Christ and become members of the Catholic Church for salvation.There would be traditional Mission knowing that all non Catholics who have died were oriented to Hell without faith and baptism (AG 7).Being incorporated into the Church with faith and baptism, is the ordinary way of salvation.
This is the Declaration of this Conference(XYZ).We affirm the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II and the Catechisms (Trent, Pius X ,Pope John Paul II 1994 ).
This is a doctrinal issue and we appeal to the popes and the cardinals to also affirm it.'
This is a doctrinal issue and the cardinals will not affirm it.They would no more be able to say that they affirm traditional doctrine.- Lionel Andrades

Tancred said...

It’s a rupture with EENS for a lot of Catholics who read it.

Bill Danby said...

God is not bound by dogma. That's the faultline in all this EENS charade, but never let the sovereign will of God get in the way of a boutique salon game of who's allowed in my sand pit and who's cast.

Piers Ackermann said...

EENS has no place in the Catholic Church, one because no one can no the mind of God and two, because it derives from an inadequate, narrow minded Europe focused ecclesiology that has little or nothing in common with the mind, heart and teaching of Jesus the Jew, Son of God.

Catholic Mission said...

For us Catholics dogma refers to how God chooses to be bound.-Lionel

Bill Danby said...

No, Lionel, dogma is the means by which some catholics have attempted to bind God's will to what they want.
The strategy is to claim the highest authority for your most outrageous pathology. It's a lot like 'In God we Trust' on US bank notes or 'Gott mit Uns' on SS belt buckles.
It's all about power, control, manipulation on a grand scale then tarted up as revelation.
The Eschaton will probably be a huge disappointment to you Lionel.

Catholic Mission said...

It could also be a big disappointment for you too.
I'll take my chances on the experiences of the saints, the inspiration of Scrupture and un broken Tradition from the time of the Promised Jewish Messiah whose coming was foretold by the Jewish Prophets.

Bill D said...

You would progress in your thinking Lionel, if you came to understand that at the heart of the Catholic belief system is a very small core of teachings that constitute the authentic Tradition. Down the ages, Popes, bishops, theologians and their lay courtiers have insinuated their own speculative thinking into Catholic teaching under the small umbrella of the Tradition. Another name for it is 'creeping infallibility.'
EENS is just another raft of speculation about salvation by people who lived in a period of church history typified by appalling mass ignorance, a smug intelligentia along with Popes and Councils that presumed to bend God's will to their flawed theological premises.
The end truth, Lionel, is that God was not, is not and never will be compliant with a human theological construct.
You're wasting you time, old chap, but that won't change because, in the end, it is not about God, Jesus, Salvation or Church dogma but psychological pathology.
Get some help.

Catholic Mission said...

The official teaching of the Church in the past and today

When Fr. James Martin s.j says that his views on homosexuality and homosexual acts are the official teaching of the Church he means that they are approved ( not opposed) by the present pontificate even though they are in conflict with past pontificates.
Similarly when he says that not every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation and this is the official teaching of the Church today, it means that this is the conclusion of the official interpretation of Vatican Council II with an irrational premise. Of course Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the error and this would be the official teaching of the Church.

So when I say every one needs to enter the Catholic Church as a member for salvation and there can be no known exceptions, this could be in future the 'official teaching' of the Magisterium, with a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.It would differ of course,from the official teaching of the present pontificate, which interprets Vatican Council II irrationally.

If it said that this is my personal opinion only then this would be false.Since anyone can interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and the conclusion would be the same.

Even the present two popes could do the same and the conclusion would be the same as me. Then of course my interpretation would be the official teaching of the Church. So when I say that all non Catholics who have died were oriented to Hell, this is the official teaching of Vatican Council II, of the Church,interpreted rationally.

It reminds me, when the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was lifted he was told to keep it private and do not announce it.Since the official teaching of the Church at that time had become, invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible exceptions to the traditional, official interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

For Fr.Leonard Feeney the official teaching of the Church was still the dogma EENS interpreted rationally. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire were not visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the official interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus had been changed with the use of an irrationality.-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

Soon LifeSites and Rorate Caeili will be saying again that we need a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II

With invisible for us baptism of desire being considered visible for us, the official interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) was discarded with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.This irrational reasoning was the New Theology at Vatican Council II.
The official teaching of the Church had been changed. This has been accepted by the speakers at the Conference last Saturday, organized by the Friends of Cardinal Cafarra.They affirm the New Theology. So they accept a change in doctrine on salvation but only oppose a change in morals.

Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider also interpret invisible for us Lumen Gentium 8 as being a visible exception to EENS . They discard EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries.None of them objected on March 1,2018 when Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j, told the journalist from Associated Press that Lumen Gentium 8 ( visible for him) was an exception ( since it refers to an explicit and objective case) to the Catholic Church's traditional understanding on it having the exclusiveness and superiority in salvation.
There was no comment from any one even though there are so many reports on line on this issue over the years.
Probably Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider and other conservatives, do not want to state that the Church teaches in Vatican Council II (AG 7) that all non Catholics without faith and baptism, which is needed for salvation, are oriented to Hell and there are no exceptions mentioned in the Council-text.
This would be Vatican Council II for them, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc referring to personally unknown people in the present time,just hypothetical cases.

So Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider do not want to affirm the traditional doctrines on salvation.
To reject EENS with allegedly visible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water- is not heresy?
What the Church taught for centuries on EENS is put aside with known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), outside the Church. As if we could know who they are.

Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider also did not object in March 2016 when Pope Benedict in an interview in Avvenire said that EENS was no more like it was in the past.One Magisterium changes the teachings of another Magisterium.
Now Burke and Schneider object to the change in moral teachings, expressed in Amoris Laetitia and which is being implemented in many countries, but do not object to the official change in our understanding of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.
What was official in the past is no more offical and they have no objection.What was considered invisible in the past is now considered visible and is the basis of a new theology and new ecclesiology and they have no objections.

This was why Cardinal Kasper before the Synod said in an interview that if ecclesiology ( past exclusivist ecclesiology) could be changed then why cannot the Eucharist be given to the divorced and remarried.
No one told him that ecclesiology has not been changed.Since it has been changed and this is accepted by Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider.
Soon Bishop Schneider will given another interview to Lifesites News or Rorate Caeili, or to both, asking for a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II as if he still does not understand what I write here.
The editors of LifeSites and Rorate Caeli know the opposition they will draw if they interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.So they do not report on this.They safely interpret Vatican Council II as it has been interpreted for 50 years.
-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

I don't want to 'progress' in my thinking. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
The Holy Spirit does not guide the Church to change its teaching every century and especially when the dominant culture is Satanic.
The 'creeping fallibility' has come into the Church with ecclesiasitical Masonry, which is euphemistically called 'liberalism' and 'openess'.
EENS comes to us from Jesus teachings in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.This was how it was understood by the Apostles, the Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers, the time of the Golden Age in the Catholic Church.
We do not need the theological construct of those who faked it on Vatican Council II and interpreted hypothetical cases as being known examples of salvation outside the Church.

Proclaiming the Catholic Faith according to the Church Fathers, the popes and saints over centuries is not a waste of time for me.Presenting me with false philosophy and innovative theology based on an objective error and an exposed falsehood, would be a waste of time-Lionel

Catholic Mission said...

EENS has always been in the Catholic Church. It is supported by Vatican Council II.

Catholic Mission said...

Get some help.

I am affirming the Faith according to St.Thomas Aquinas and the popes and you and your friends assume people in Heaven are visible exceptions on earth to the dogma EENS.This is slightly off the top.How can unknown people be known exceptions to traditional EENS?
For you invisible people saved with the baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is a 'bit irregular'. I am here to help you.
You cannot violate the Principle of Non Contradicion and act normal,even after being informed.I can help your friends too.

Bill D said...

The only plan of salvation God is interested in is that which was announced and accomplished by Jesus Christ, not ecclesiastical dogmatists, Feeney, Feenyites, Cushites, Hittites, Hebronities or anyone else.
What grips you, Lionel, is an obsessive compulsive disorder that drives you to sniff out any blog or combox in creation to trot out this nonsense.

Tancred said...

If the Church doesnt decide in Her infallible dogmatic prouncents, we leave it to a mentally disturbed, anonymous poster to this blog, who gets to decide what Jesus Christ’s intent was when He founded the Church.

Jeff Seal said...

There's a very wide selection of mentally disturbed posters on this site. Congratulations on running such an outstanding operation. It keeps them off the streets.

Catholic Mission said...

Some anonymous commenters here are upset since I am not projecting Vatican Council II as a rupture with Feeneyite EENs or EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.For some 70 plus years this was the new thinking in the Church.
Since they infer that LG 8, LG 16 etc refer to known people;known non Catholics, saved outside the Church, Vatican Council II is a rupture with traditional EENS.
This is irrational for me. LG 8,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc refer to unknown people in the present times or the past. This is common sense. If someone was saved as such it would only be known to God. So they are not on earth to be exceptions to EENS.
So Vatican Council II for me never ever was an exception to EENS or a rupture with the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.
So when I affirm EENS I am also affirming Vatican Council II and all the Catechisms and the statements of the popes on this issue.
For example when Mystici Corporis and the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent mention the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, they are referring to unknown and invisible cases in real life. So they never ever were exceptions to EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
The Catholic Church has infalliblty pronounced the dogma EENS and there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II. The Council- text supports 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS and suggests that all who have died outside the Church without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) are lost.-Lionel Andrades

Barnum said...

Hey, Gaybill,

As is your won't, you invert the issue. Dogma explains some objective mystery about God. Your putting words in the mouths of others doesn't hide the fact that you won't be bound by Catholic dogma.

Just for yucks, tell us what this "very small core" consists of, sounds like it shouldn't take you much time and would be a list shorter than the Creed.

Graham Hill said...

Zuhlsdorf's 'Catholic identity' is defined by his preposterous self-referential clericalism, his arrogant sense of entitlement and expectation that he will be provided with an expensive sybaritic lifestyle funded by his struggling disciples, his outlandish Amazon wish list, his frequent 'My View for a while' premium class trips on someone else's dime.
Zuhlsdorf and other clerical operators like him don't give a damn about the real Catholic people, pressing Catholic issues and honest pastoral care.
It's business and as such, has nothing to do with God or real Catholic Church.

Catholic Mission said...

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's blog is one of my favourite blogs. I appreciate his writings and the issues he supports.May God bless him.
However he does not support Feeneyite EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II, interpreted without the false premise.This was the point I wanted to make.-Lionel

Tancred said...

I'll bet you wish deep down, you could be as constructive and useful.

Tancred said...

As Barnum asks, how do you know the mind of God so well, Piers?

Catholic Mission said...

Once this is understood we can always interpret Vatican Council II as affirming an ecumenism of return only.

Vatican Council II only affirms and ecumenism of return.I repeat Vatican Council II only affirms an ecumenism of return.Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2, Gaudium et Spes 22, Ad Gentes 11( seeds of the Word),Lumen Gentium 8(elements of sanctification and truth/susbist it in, LG 16 (invincible ignorance/good conscience) etc refer to speculative, theoretical and hypothetical cases in 2018. They were invisible cases in the past too and so never were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.They are not exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Invisible and unknown people cannot be known examples of Christians saved in their religion. So there is no basis for the new ecumenism in Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II only affirms an ecumenism of return.
The following are some examples of the only hypothetically cases mentioned in Vatican Council II.

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. - Unitatis redintegratio 3,Vatican Council II

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church - Unitatis Redintegratio 3,Vatican Council II

It follows that the separated Churches(23) 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.-UR 3

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.-Gaudium et Spes 22

For, since Christ died for all men,(32) and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.-Gaudium et Spes 22

let them(Christians) be familiar with their national and religious traditions; let them gladly and reverently lay bare the seeds of the Word which lie hidden among their fellows. -Ad Gentes 11

None of the above quotations refer to known people. We do not know any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church.We cannot know of any one saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. They are not examples of objectively seen, Christians who are saved outside the Church.We do not know of any one from the separated Churches and communities saved outside the Catholic Church. So if there are no known cases then how can there be exceptions to EENS ?.
We do not know of men of good will, Christians and non Christians, saved outside the Catholic Church and we humans cannot know of any one saved outside the Catholic Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) and instead with the 'seeds of the Word'.
Vatican Council II nowhere contradicts the dogma EENS.So there can only be an ecumenism of return.
There is no theological basis for the new ecumenism. It is only by wrongly assuming hypothetical cases are real people saved outside the Church, that it was said by the liberal theologians , that there is known salvation outside the Church.Then the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then became obsolete.
In principle the Vatican Council II Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible.


Catholic Mission said...

Vatican Council has passages which support EENS and no passage which contradicts EENS

Tancred said...

You have yet to explain how it is so many clergy and princes of the Church use it to contradict EENS.

Catholic Mission said...

They mic up hypothetical cases as being objective and known examples of salvation outside the Church.
So for example Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth) is a reference to a hypothetical, speculative, theoretical case. So it cannot be a known example in 2018, of an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).An invisible person cannot be an example of salvation outside the Church.
Yet on March 1,2018 Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to EENS for Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j at the Press Conference for Placuit Deo.
He had a choice.
He could have assumed like me that LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for me.
So he would be saying( and we can say the same thing) that Vatican Council II only supports an ecumenism of return.
It supports only the traditional interpetation of outside the Church there is no salvation.Since the baptism of desire(LG 14) and invisible ignorance(LG 16) etc refer to only hypothetical cases.
This is Vatican Council II for me since I do not mistake hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical.I do not project them as exceptions to EENS.The rest of the Church can start doing the same thing.

Catholic Mission said...

APRIL 15, 2018
The interpretation of Paolo Pasqualucci, Romano Amerio and Msgr. Brunero Gherardini is irrational it can be seen in the text of the blog 1Peter5 : They misinterpreted hypothetical cases in Lumen Gentium, Unitatitis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate as being objective people saved outside the Church.This was a mistake