Saturday, December 29, 2012

THERE IS NO DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II AS CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBURG ALLEGES : SINCE THE COUNCIL DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS

Vatican Council II no where says that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation or that those saved in other religions are known to us and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no 'doctrinal development' in Vatican Council II as Cardinal Christoph Schonburg puts it.

 

If the Council did state that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus then there could be a 'theology of religions' or an 'ecclesiology of communion' and 'a doctrinal development'.

Cardinal Schonburg assumes that those saved in other religions, which we accept in principle as possibilities, are known to us.Then he assumes that these cases, known only to God, are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The ordinary means of salvation according to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. So non Catholics have an obligation to enter the Church for salvation.

Dignitatis Humane refers to the rights of non Catholics in a society with a secular Constituion.It also states that non Catholics have an obligation to enter the Church and the Catholic has the right to proclaim the Faith.

So there is no new doctrine being taught in Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades




Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Council: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn Rejects Extreme Interpretations

Edit: the kinds of hermeneutics and developments that would allow you to give a funeral to a Communist pornographer?

Vienna (kath.net/KAP) Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has turned against extreme positions in the estimation of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). In an interview with "Kathpress" and the media of the Archdiocese of Vienna the Cardinal has rejected all previous interpretations, where in the Council radically breaks with Tradition.

This determination is directed at those are only more fixed on novelties and reject Tradition, while the others demand a return to Tradition and reject the reforms of the Council.

Pope Benedict XVI. has warned against both versions and proposed a "hermeneutic of continuity". It is an organic development, says Schönborn. The Council has not been a break, actually it has been a "true doctrinal development" in the Catholic Church, for instance in relation to religious freedom, the Episcopal office or relations to non-Christian religions.

That in the wake of a Council that there are tensions and discussions about its correct interpretation, is nothing new in any case, says Schönborn. So it took about 300 years for example till the Church could prevail the doctrine of the Council of Nicea (325). From the earliest Councils till the Second Vatican Council, there have always been divisions or tendencies in the wake of Episcopal gatherings.

It is a very urgent task, says the Cardinal, that at least the central texts of the Vatican Council would have been reread, where for many it would probably be the first reading.

Admittedly there are still urgent tasks, which Pope Benedict XVI. also portends with the three volumes of his Jesus books. "It is completely decided on the question of the discipleship of Christ," stressed the Cardinal also with a view on the "Year of Faith".

A Christendom, "in which a vague love of God is somewhere on the horizon of lit and not the concrete visible living form of Jesus Christ with his invitation to follow" will sooner or later lose its ability to attract. A vague general religiosity is not able, "to gather people and imprint a society."
From kath.net...
(Eponymous Flower)

The issue is still doctrine

The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society (of St Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church" (Pope Benedict XVI, Letter of 10 March 2009 to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre).(Wikipedia)
The issue is still doctrine.

The Vatican and the SSPX are using the false premise of the dead man walking and this is influencing their theology.It is changing Catholic doctrine and it affects their interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX cannot provide any text; any reference from Vatican Council II which contradicts the Church's traditional teaching on other religions. I have been saying this for a few years and no one in the SSPX has posted any material on line which  proves me wrong.

It is because of the dead man walking error that the SSPX assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the Church's teaching on other religions.-Lionel Andrades

ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FALSE PREMISE ?

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says:





"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Lionel: These cases are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So why mention these 'exceptions'? Is he implying that a person who follows his conscience and is saved (LG 16) is  known to us and so is an exception to the dogma?

2

SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies",p.216

“Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.),  but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.

It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Lionel: So what if they are saved in their religion ? We do not personally know who they are. Is he implying that we do know these cases and so they are exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Now on the U.S website of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) there is an article by Fr.Francois Laisney in which he criticizes the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, and he also implies, that these cases saved are known to us and so are exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The SSPX bishops have also made the same error and so they imply that seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church, invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc mentioned in Vatican Council II are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church's traditional teaching on other religions.

So the fault is not with the Council but with the false premise used by the SSPX religious and this influences their theology.
-Lionel Andrades

____________________________________


According to Archbishop Gerhard Muller Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a heretic for interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past

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

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know the reason why Vatican Council II was modernist. It was there before him but he could not see it.

NO SSPX RESPONSE TO TWO QUESTIONS ON RORATE CAELI

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE

BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA SO IF FR.LEONAED FEENEY SAID ‘THIS OR THAT’, AS THEY SAY, IT IS IRRELEVANT

Vatican Council II agrees with Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Nothing in Vatican Council II contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

CONFERENCE NEEDED

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma

Is the Catholic Church ecclesiocentric SSPX? It cannot be ecclesiocentric if those saved with the baptism of desire are explicitly known and not just accepted in principle.

POPE BENEDICT AND BISHOP GERHARD MULLER WORKED CLOSELY AT THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

ITC documents 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized ' need to be retracted or corrected: Richard Cushing flaw runs through

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Bishop Charles Morerod O.P Oath of Fidelity: to dissent
Profession of Faith allows for dissent on ecclesiology and baptism