Friday, October 26, 2012

DOES CARDINAL DANNEELS ASSUME THAT VATICAN COUNCIL II BROKE WITH THE PAST BECAUSE OF THE DEAD VISIBLE TO US INTERPRETATION ?



Danneels: Vatican II broke with past-The Tablet
25 October 2012
The Church broke away from its negative and "world-rejecting" past at the Second Vatican Council, a senior cardinal has said.

In a speech given last week at Clifton Cathedral in Bristol and St George's Cathedral in Southwark, south London, Cardinal Godfried Danneels said that Vatican II represented a "discontinuity with past thinking" comparable to that at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, when the Nicaean Creed was formulated.


Lionel: How can Vatican Council break away from the past unless the cardinal is assuming that in the text of the Council, every time there is a reference to a non Catholic saved, it is of a person known to us , and so this is an exception to the dogmas and tradition in general.

No where in Nostra Aetate is it said that non Catholics do not have to convert into the Church for salvation or that they are saved in general in their religion. Instead Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new people of God.

Vatican Council II also indicates that all non Catholics need faith and baptism for salvation(AG7). This is in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation. There are no known exceptions.LG 16 does not contradict AG 7.


So the cardinal can only mention 'the spirit of Vatican Council II' he cannot cite text from the Council which shows that it is a break from the past especially with reference to the other religions.

In Southwark, where he was speaking, the bishops and priests assume that the baptism of desire is a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

According to their Vocations Director, candidates with a religious vocation have to accept that the dead, visible and saved with the baptism of desire, are very visible to them all.


They have to believe this irrationality,according to the Vocation Director, since Fr.Leonard Feeney according to him, was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire. In other words, Fr.leonard Feeney said that  he could not see the dead saved with the baptism of desire, who are exceptions to the traditional literal interpretation of the dogma .So they excommunicated him.The cardinals who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 could see these cases.


Blogger Fr.Tim Finnigan, from Southwark also affirms this irrationality.Perhaps it is expected of him by the Archbishop of Southwark, Peter Smith. This is also the position of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales.


Similar to Archbishop Peter Smith, Cardinal Daneels, could be making the same error as the bishops and priests of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and so they all assume that the Council is modernist and a break with the past.

The report continues.
His remarks however appear to conflict with Pope Benedict XVI's analysis that the Council should be understood as reform within continuity. The Pope has also criticised the "hermenuetic of discontinuity" as an analysis of Vatican II.

Lionel: If one uses the false premise of the dead saved being visible to us, then there has to be a hermeneutic of discontinuity.


The Belgian cardinal was speaking as part of lecture series in both dioceses to mark the start of the Year of Faith.



Lionel: In the Year of the Faith it is alleged that we can see the dead who are saved and who visible here on earth. They are not only exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but  even Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break from the dogma, the Syllabus and the rest of Tradition.

Danneels, who was present as an expert at the Second Vatican Council in 1962, told audiences that the council had demonstrated that the Church's traditions and practices "need not necessarily remain that [unchangeable] way for eternity".

Lionel: They have changed obviously because a new premise has been accepted by the liberals and traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades

ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS A MODERNIST FOR INTERPRETING VATICAN CONCIL II WITH THE EXPLICIT,VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE












The Council does not contradict the Society of St.Pius ( SSPX) position on other religions unless it is assumed that the dead saved are visible to us.Indications are that the Archbishop made this error.
Bishop Richard Williamson comes across as a modernist for implying the baptism of desire is visible to us and so his interpretation of Vatican Council II is modernism.With this false premise the Council has to be in error.In itself the Council is not modernist.
Similarly Bishop Bernard Fellay is a modernist because of his interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the visible dead theory , which supposely  contradict Tradition.

The clue is in Vatican Council II.Since they believe that the Council contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, they must be assuming that those who are dead and saved are known to us. So these cases are exceptions.

With this false premise of the visible dead, the Council has to be interpreted as modernist with errors.A false premise must produce errors.

If for them Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition it is because they assume, those saved with a good conscience or invincible ignorance, are visible to us.Since they are visible and known to them, for the bishops they are exceptions.LG 16 is modernist for them.

This has been the modernist interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The SSPX bishops were also modernists in their understanding of Vatican Council II and other religions.


The Council without the false premise affirms the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.Vatican Council II is traditonal. -Lionel Andrades