Thursday, June 6, 2013

Interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II, secondo la Tradizione


Italian translation of :
Interpreting Vatican Council II according to Tradition
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/interpreting-vatican-council-ii.html

Ci sono due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II.Uno è razionale e in accordo con Tradizione Cattolica. Un altra interpretazione e non tradizione è irrazionale.Una rottura con la Tradizione.
 
Il razionale interpretazione dice che bisogna tutti convertire e entrare nella Chiesa Cattolica per salvezza.La altra è irrazionale non dice tutto, ma solo quelli che conoscono Gesù e hanno avuto il Vangelo predicato a loro.Solo loro  hanno bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa o essere dannati.L'interpretazione razionale citare Ad Gentes 7, Concilio Vaticano II e dire che tutti bisogna entrare nella Chiesa Cattolica per la salvezza. Avrebbero bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa visibile, con la Fede Cattolica visibile e battesimo di aqua visibile. Questo è in accordo con la Tradizione, il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e il Sillabo di Errori.La interpretazione irrazionale potrebbe citare Ad Gentes 7 e sostengono che tutti devono entrare nella Chiesa che sanno. Solo chi conosce.
In principio quelli che sanno avrebbe bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa. In realtà non conosciamo alcun caso che had ricevuto salvezza. In teoria si . In practica in 2013
non esiste tale caso che contraddice la Tradizione.
L'interpretazione irrazionale presuppone che possiamo giudicare chi sa e chi non sa. Questo lo rende irrazionale. S
olo Dio può giudicare chi conosce e chi è nell'ignoranza.L'interpretazione razionale dice che tutti hanno bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa. L'irrazionale interpretazione si pretende ci sono eccezioni a tutti non bisogno entrare nella chiesa. E basano sul teoria che noi conoscere o vedere i morti, che ora sono salvati in ignoranza. Non è reale!
 
Questi eccezioni rende irrationale.Noi non può vedere i morti sulla terra.L' interpretazione irrazionale è anche una rottura con la tradizione in quanto utilizza la falsa premessa. la falsa premessa assumere che noi possiamo vedere i morti, poi assume questi casi, sono eccezione per la Tradizione cioè il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e il Sillabo di Errori.

Così siamo in grado di scegliere tra le due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II, uno che è razionale e in accordo con la tradizione e l'altra che non è.
 
La maggior parte delle persone oggi scelgono l'interpretazione irrazionale e non Tradizionale con supportati dai media liberali.
  
Il Concilio Vaticano II, per sé è proprio tradizionale, come la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949 relativa alla Don.Leonard Feeney. Noi non conosciamo nessuno salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile e il battesimo di desiderio nel 2013.
Il aggiunto irrazionale rende il Concilio Vaticano liberale e una rottura con il passato.

Allo stesso modo noi non conosciamo nessuno salvato in imperfetta comunione con la Chiesa (UR 3), germi di Verbo (AG 11), le cose buone e sante nelle religioni non cattoliche (NA 2),  una buona coscienza (LG 16) ecc.Se
abbiamo affermato che personalmente sapevamo questi casi, allora sarebbe irrazionale e una rottura con la Tradizione.
Mons. Augustine Di Noia, Vice Prefetto, Ecclesia Dei, Vaticano dice che il Concilio Vaticano II può essere interpretato secondo la tradizione.Lui ha chiesto la Società di San Pio X di accettare il Concilio. Possible questo è ciò che intende.-Lionel Andrades


 


Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith officials use the false premise : here is the proof !


 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J uses the false premise : here is the proof!

 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/archbishop-augustine-di-noia-was-using.html#links

-Lionel Andrades

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J uses the false premise : here is the proof!

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was the President of the International Theological Commission when the ITC paper Christianity and the World Religions was issued in 1997. (1)
The text of the paper shows that he assumes there is known salvation which is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(2)
'which rejected Feeney's interpretation' Cardinal Luiz Ladaria states.He is referring  to the heresy of Fr.Leonard Feeney and is suggesting that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy because of his strict interpretation of the dogma. In other words being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known- to- him exceptions to the dogma and the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He implies that these cases are known and so are exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney. He implies that the Letter of the Holy Office actually says that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.The text does not state this . He was excommunicated for disobedience and not heresy.
 
If he was excommunicated for heresy then it would mean that the Letter made an objective error. It assumed there were known exceptions to the dogma.
'and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation' states Cardinal Luiz Ladaria.Here he makes the same error as Archbishop Gerhard Muller in the interview with the National Catholic Register.
 
He assumes we can know personally those who know about the Church and yet do not enter and are damned  and those who are saved in incuplable ignorance. Since he believes that we know these cases personally they are exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. He uses the false premise of being able to see the dead and then builds his theology upon it. They are known exceptions to the tradtional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
On this false premise he postulates that there can also be a theology of religions.-Lionel Andrades
 
(1)
The study of the theme "Christianity and the World Religions" was adopted for study by a large majority of the members of the International Theological Commission. To prepare this study a subcommission was established composed of Bishop Norbert Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C.; Rev. Barthelemy Adoukonou; Rev. Jean Corbon; Rev. Mario de Franca Miranda, S.J.; Rev. Ivan Golub; Rev. Tadahiko Iwashima, S.J.; Rev. Luis F. Ladaria, S.J. (president); Rev. Hermann J. Pottmeyer; and Rev. Andrzej Szostek, M.I.C. General discussion on this theme took place during several meetings of the subcommission and in the plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome in 1993, 1994 and 1995. The present text was approved "in forma specifica" by vote of the commission on 30 September 1996 and was submitted to its president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has given his approval for its publication.
 
 
(2)
 

62. It is not possible to develop a theology of the religions without taking into account the universal salvific mission of the Church, attested to by Holy Scripture and by the tradition of faith of the Church. A theological evaluation of the religions was impeded over a long time because of the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus, understood in an exclusivist sense. With the doctrine about the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation or the sacrament of the kingdom of God, theology seeks to respond to the new way of posing the problem. This teaching, which was also welcomed by Vatican Council II, is linked to the sacramental vision of the Church in the New Testament.

63. The primary question today is not whether men can attain salvation even if they do not belong to the visible Catholic Church; this possibility is considered theologically certain. The plurality of religions, something increasingly evident to Christians, better knowledge of these religions and the necessary dialogue with them, without leaving until the end the clearer awareness of the spatial and temporal frontiers of the Church—all these considerations make us ask whether one can nonetheless speak about the necessity of the Church for salvation and about the compatibility of this principle with the universal salvific will of God.

A. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"

64. Jesus linked the proclamation of the kingdom of God with his Church. After Jesus' death and resurrection, the reunion of the people of God, now in the name of Jesus Christ, took place. The Church of Jews and gentiles was understood as a work of God and as the community in which one experienced the action of the Lord exalted in the heavens and his Spirit. With faith in Jesus Christ, the universal mediator of salvation, was joined baptism in his name; this mediated participation in his redemptive death, pardon of sins and entrance into the community of salvation (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5). For this reason baptism is compared with the ark of salvation (1 Pet 3:20ff.). According to the New Testament, the necessity of the Church for salvation is based on the unique salvific mediation of Jesus.

65. One speaks of the necessity of the Church for salvation in two senses: the necessity of belonging to the Church for those who believe in Jesus and the necessity for salvation of the ministry of the Church which, on mission from God, must be at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821). The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus (sic), afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69). In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).

69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).

70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful.31 Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.(emphasis added)
 

Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof! http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/archbishop-gerhard-muller-was-using.html#links

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia was using the false premise : here is the proof! http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/archbishop-augustine-di-noia-was-using.html#links

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia was using the false premise : here is the proof!



There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.One is rational and in agreement with Tradition.The other is irrational and a break with Tradition.The rational one says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.The irrational one says not all but only those who know about Jesus and have had the Gospel preached to them, who need to enter the Church or be damned. The irrational one says we can see and know persons saved with 'elements of sanctification'(LG 8) etc.

The rational interpretation would cite Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and say all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. They would need to enter the Church visibly; with visible Catholic Faith and visible baptism of water.This is in agreement with Tradition, the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.The irrational interpretation could cite Ad Gentes 7 and claim that all need to enter the Church who know. Only those who know.
As mentioned in a previous post the rational one says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.The irrational one says not all but only those who know about Jesus and have had the Gospel preached to them, who need to enter the Church or be damned.The rational interpretation would cite Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and say all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. They would need to enter the Church visibly; with visible Catholic Faith and visible baptism of water.This is in agreement with Tradition, the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.The irrational interpretation could cite Ad Gentes 7 and claim that all need to enter the Church who know. Only those who know.
 
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican is using the irrational interpretation which is a break from Tradition. It can be seen from this interview he gave the National Catholic Register.
 
Archbishop Di Noia said ' the Council did say that there were elements of grace in other religions'. He is implying that these cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
National Catholic Register

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?

Archbishop Augustine Di  Noia

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …

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.'

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR

When Archbishop Di Noia states 'the Council did say that there were elements of grace in other religions' he was implying that this was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He was been asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus and he implied there were exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

If this was an exception then it was a case known to him. Only if it was a known case could it be an exception to every one needing to convert into Church.In other words he could name someone who did not have to enter the Church for salvation and was saved or going to be saved with 'elements of sanctification' with grace.

LG 8 does not state that those saved with elements of sanctification are visible to us. Neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So where is the magisterial text which supports the Archbishop's view when he implies that there are exceptions and so now there is a doctrinal development with regard to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? None! There is no such text to support his view.
He has used the false premise of being able to see the dead saved (with elements of sanctification etc ) and then assumes that this is an exception to Tradition in general and in particular to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 When Archbishop Di Noia says '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' he cannot cite text where the Council names any one who will be saved. Neither can he say that the Anglican or Lutheran that he knows will not commit a mortal sin in future. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church it is not enough just to believe in Jesus. One has to live the Gospel as taught by the Catholic Church and die with no mortal sin .So which Protestant that the Archbishop knows can meet this condition for him to be sure of salvation?

 As mentioned in a previous post on this blog ,in principle , we accept that those who know would need to enter the Church. In reality we do not know any such case who is saved in 2013.In theory yes. In practise there is no such case known which contradicts Tradition. The irrational interpretation assumes we can judge 'who knows and who does not'. This makes it irrational. Since only God can judge who knows and who is in inculpable ignorance.The rational interpretation says all need to enter the Church. The irrational one claims there are exceptions to all needing to enter the church.The exceptions are based on being able to know or see the dead, who are now saved in inculpable ignorance.

This makes it irrational.We cannot see the dead on earth.The irrational interpretation is also a break with Tradition since it uses the premise of being able to see the dead, then assumes these cases, are known exceptions to Tradition i.e to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
 
So we can choose between the two interpretations of Vatican Council II one which is rational and in accord with Tradition and the other which is not.
Most people today choose the irrational and non traditional interpretation and they are supported by the liberal media.This is the interpretation of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Archbishop Gerhard Muller in their interviews with the National Catholic Register.-Lionel Andrades

BOTH ARCHBISHOP MULLER AND DI NOIA MADE A FACTUAL ERROR IN THEIR SEPARATE INTERVIEWS WITH THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER

 
IS THE HOLY SPIRIT SAYING LIKE ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA THAT LG 8, LG 16 ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN AND ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA?

THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN VATICAN COUNCIL II ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE: THE COUNCIL IS TRADITIONAL OTHERWISE

There is ambiguity in Vatican Council II because of the use of a false premise and not because of the Council itself.Change the premise and the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
On this blog I have cited numerous Catholics using a false premise and then assuming that the Council is liberal and ambiguous.
I have also shown how if you correct the premise , Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 take on a new meaning.They are no more a break with the past.
 
There cannot be ambiguity if Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Archbishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia do not assume the dead are visible to us. This is the irrational premise being used today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cardinal and archbishops.
 
It's probably unintentional. Something they have overlooked. This was my error also  once upon a time.I am no apologist.I don't have academic degrees in theology, philosophy or Scripture.I keep saying I am no authority but of one thing I am dead sure, it is, we cannot see the dead.
Unlike the CDF and the Vatican Curia Michael Voris on Church Militant TV understands. He got it right. He asked Fr.Jonathan Morris to name someone who does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (1). Similarly Cardinal Walter Kaspar cannot name any one saved in inculpable ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and good and holy things in their religion (NA 2).
 
Vatican Council II does not name any one saved. There is no one named who is saved and outside the church.
Vatican Council II instead indicates that all need to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation, with visible Catholic Faith and visible to us baptism of desire.
I suspect Cardinal Walter Kaspar knows all this.Otherwise he would have been quick to present some theology to refute what I have been writing over the years.
This issue is shocking and disappointing for many liberals.They realize that the false premise was the cause of the ambiguity in Vatican Council II.
They realize that if those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not visible to us then how on earth (no pun intended), can we meet or find an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We cannot see the dead! This is an objective observation, a fact of life. Recognize this premise and the ambiguity goes.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted for centuries. It's pro- St.Robert Bellarmine and the Jesuit missionaries.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted for centuries.
 
Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it is commonly reported on the Internet.
The liberals had been looking at those saved, 'exceptions',independently of the dogma on salvation.Then they also assumed that the 'exceptions' were known.Tradition shows us that 'the ordinary means of salvation' (Redemptoris Missio 55) is the Church, it is 'faith and baptism' (AG 7). The ordinary means of salvation is not the exceptions which we accept as only possibilities known only to God.
We have Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in agreement with Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities/churches and there is no ambiguity here.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Video : What Did he Just Say?
http://youtu.be/ylVcrYlpOBc