Monday, July 2, 2012

ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA SUGGESTS THAT THE ANTI-SEMITIC VERSION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SSPX ?

Archbishop Di Noia the new Vice-President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei told Catholic News Service June 26 ‘ when you read the documents (of Vatican II), you can't read them from the point of view of some liberal bishops who may have been participants (at the council), you have to read them at face value," Archbishop Di Noia told CNS. "Given that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, the documents cannot be in discontinuity with tradition."

If the Vatican Council II documents are read in continuity with Tradition it would make Vatican Council II (AG 7) anti Semitic ,according to the Jewish Left, who protest against the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) admits that Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) agrees with the SSPX position on other religions (including Judaism) ecumenism and religious liberty, the latter being a natural consequence of the dogma on exclusive salvation, they would meet the Jewish Left criteria of being anti Semitic.

If Vatican Council II is anti Semitic, when it supports the literal interpretation of the dogma then it means all Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits can hold the literal interpretation of the dogma along with being saved with implicit and invincible ignorance. It also means Vatican Council II supports Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Catholic liberals assume LG 16 is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma so we have their interpretation of Vatican Council II and we also have the anti-Semitic version.

The  SSPX uses the liberal’s interpretation of Vatican Council II and also assumes LG 16 is an explicit exception. So they reject Vatican Council II.

Traditionalists supporting Fr. Leonard Feeney criticize the liberals and the SSPX for denying the ancient interpretation of the dogma. They are silent about LG 16 being implicit and not being an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation.

It is important to remember that LG 16 states that ‘those who do not know the Gospel through no fault of their own and who follow the dictates of their conscience’ can be saved. LG 16 does not say that these cases are known to us, or are the ordinary means of salvation or that they contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma or that they contradict AG 7 which says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

Cardinal Ladaria and Cardinal Koch at the Vatican Curia assume that LG 16 is explicit and so contradicts the literal interpretation of the centuries old dogma. So they expect the SSPX to accept their version of the Council before receiving canonical status.

The Ladaria-Koch version is a break with Tradition. It rejects the literal interpretation of the dogma.

When Archbishop Di Noia told CNS. "Given that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, the documents cannot be in discontinuity with tradition" he was recommending the anti-Semitic version of Vatican Council II for the SSPX.

The Holy Spirit has not changed the teachings of the Church and Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in accord with the dogma while LG 16 is not an explicit exception.-Lionel Andrades


ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS NOT WEAKENED THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Vatican Council II has not altered the teaching of the Church he said on the dogma outside the church no salvation.
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia who comes across as a modernist and holds the Vatican's political correct position according to the Jewish Left , is asked about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in an interview with the National Catholic Register.
Q: How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?

DiNOIA: I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasised the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. … [Karl] Rahner had a disastrous effect on this with his “anonymous Christianity.”But the Council does not alter the teaching of the Church.

Q: And yet they argue it does?

DiNOIA: This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the light of the whole Tradition.

Q: They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.

DiNOIA:Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology.  That’s why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.

Q: Some traditionalists say secular humanism frequently wins over dogmatic assertions in the modern Church. To give an example: The Holy Father has said he wouldn’t have lifted the excommunication on Bishop [Richard] Williamson had he known about his anti-Semitism. But while anti-Semitism is heinous, traditionalists say that such views aren’t a dogmatic position. And yet Catholic politicians can freely speak against the dogma and remain in full communion with the Church. What do you say to such an argument?

DiNOIA: That’s a trap. Edward Norman, in his very good book Secularization, says there’s no question that what he calls internal secularization, secular humanism, has definitely invaded parts of the Church. They [SSPX] are probably right about that, and I could give them a longer list of examples than they could probably make themselves.

However, to try and defend Williamson on this basis is disgusting and odious. Is a politician the same thing as a bishop? Give me a break. It’s garbage; it’s sophistry.

Do they want a blanket excommunication of everyone who’s pro-choice? And yet here is a person, a bishop, who openly proclaims a position which the Church is desperately trying to suppress in the Church itself, which is anti-Semitism.
-from What does the Prayer Really Say

Traditionalist model of Vatican Council II is anti Semitic.

The Traditionalist model of Vatican Council II is anti Semitic, for many, hence there have been calls to pull it down when it appears in the media e.g Rorate Caeli.

Even Bishop Bernard Fellay who has removed alleged anti Semitic material from the SSPX websites in Canada etc is not touching the anti Semitic model of Vatican Council II.

Bishop Fellay suspended a priest in Italy, who was not sure if the Holocaust figure was more or less than the politically approved one,even he does not want to affirm the anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II. He just rejects Vatican Council II - period.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) bishops have embraced their alleged opponents, the liberals, on this issue.They accept and also reject Vatican Council II i.e they accept the Jewish Left non anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II and at the same time they reject it because it is not traditional.

The rabbi at the Angelicum telephoned Rorate Caeli when comments, on Rorate posts, said that Cardinal Kurt Koch was at the Angelicum on May 16, 2012 and told reporters that the SSPX would have to accept Vatican Council II (non Anti Semitic version) for canonical status.

He also added for good measure that Jews do not have to accept the New Covenant which Jesus won for us with His blood and of course Jews do not have to convert in the present times.For the Bible and the Creed to claim that they do have to convert, would be entering the politics of anti Semitism.-Lionel Andrades
 
Vatican Council II holds the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is information being blocked out by Rorate Caeli: Threats of anti-Semitism?