Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass

Vatican Council II supports the SSPX General Statement 2012 and Cardinal Raymond Burke does not know this or does not want to comment on it.Instead the Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to sign a doctrinal statement and accept Vatican Council II as a break with the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the strict interpretation. Cardinal Muller and Archbishop di Noia in an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register have rejected the strict interpretation of the dogma.Cardinal Raymond Burke has been  silent on this doctrinal issue.Since he too like the Vatican Curia , uses the Marchetti reasoning , to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.This is heresy with which he offers the Traditional Latin Mass.He is changing Church doctrine with an irrational premise and conclusion.
     

Cardinal Burke needs to announce that he will accept Vatican Council II ( without the premise).He presently  accepts Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise.

Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would then be in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It would also mean that he acknowledges that Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

He needs to announce the obvious.It must be clarified that according to reason and Tradition, we know there are no non Catholics in Heaven , without faith and baptism, who are also physically visible on earth.In 2015 we do not know any one in Heaven who is there without the baptism of water. So we cannot say that there is salvation outside the Church.Cardinal Marchetti did not know of any such case in 1949.

Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents can be affirmed keeping in mind that we human beings cannot see any deceased now in Heaven, who are there without 'faith and baptism'( Ad Gentes 7). So these persons/ cases are not living exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation.They would have to be known to be explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.If someone died centuries back with the baptism of blood ( martryrdom) and allegedly without the baptism of water, he or she cannot be an 'exception' in 2015 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

So when Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Di Noia cite Lumen Gentium 16 (  invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth) as exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, they are wrong.It's a fact of life that we cannot know these 'exceptions'. An exception must exist to be an exception.


Presently for Cardinal Burke there are 'exceptions' since he has approved Fr.John Hardon's article on outside the Church there is no salvation.For Fr.Hardon there were exceptions.Cardinal Burke  has also not corrected the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 ( The Necessity of Baptism) which states that God is not limited to the Sacraments.The text of the dogma defined by three Church Councils tell us, God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments.

Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus indicate that the magisterium has accepted that there are exceptions to the dogma. In other words salvation in Heaven without the baptism of water, is physically known and visible on earth to become an 'exception'.Hypothetical possibilities, known only to God,were exceptions to the dogma for Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

So they excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four SSPX bishops, who were protesting, against a Vatican Council II with 'exceptions' to Tradition.

If Cardinal Burke affirms that we humans cannot know of any 'exceptions' then the SSPX can accept Vatican Council II ( without the false premise).Vatican Council II would be  in accord with the General Chapter Statement. The Vatican Curia would also have to acknowledge that their interpretation of Vatican Council II ( with the false premise) is heretical, irrational and with the hermeneutic of rupture.The error is there in two theological papers of the International  Theological Commission and the Balamand Declaration.

Cardinal Muller has to be shown that there is a Vatican Council II compatible with traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that we reject his present irrational version of the Council.The fundamental issue is : are there any visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II?

I would like to clarify that I accept Vatican Council II. I accept all the documents of Vatican Council II.However I do not interpret them with the false premise and conclusion.

So the Council is in accord , for me, with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center of his time.

I also value the parts of Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus which are in agreement with the dogma.

Presently the Traditional Latin Mass is being offered with an impediment.The error could be something overlooked in innocence.

-Lionel Andrades
_________________________________

For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/for-cardinal-raymond-burke-these.html

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-ii-says.html

Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, John Martigioni and Fr.Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm agree with me : there are no visible exceptions
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search?q=Catholic+Religious+who+agree+with+me
 
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
____________________

Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html#links
__________________________

Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links
_____________________________________


DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html
______________________________

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links
____________________

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
________________________

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links