Friday, August 22, 2014

Warnings from Our Lady

FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam" : With the false premise dogmas can be denied.It happened at Boston in 1949

When the spirit of a council dictates, almost from day one, how the documents of a council are to be read and applied, then that spirit is the true fruit of the council, regardless what the documents may say. Luckily, the Church has never fallen into this trap, so keep calm and party on, right?
This is the conservative paradox: the same people who are blamed for “hijacking The Council” are those to whom pious submission must be given in the implementation of The Council.
Lionel:
Since both groups do not know that the Council has been 'hijacked' due to a false premise used in the interpretation.
 Conspiracy theories are generally taboo among conservatives, but The Tale of Those Nasty Liberals Who Hijacked Poor Ol’ Vatican Two is one conspiracy theory still very much in vogue. The documents have borne the fruits we see (and will probably keep seeing, for a long time to come)
Lionel:
When we identify the false premise used in the interpretation the confusion ends.
 because the seeds of said fruit are embedded in the documents themselves.
Lionel:
No they aren't!
The problem is caused by the inference. It is a false inference used in the interpretation of LG 16,LG 8 ,NA 2,UR 3 etc.
The false inference comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
 
 This is why, as Bp. Schneider reminds us, the documents must be subjected to a thorough magisterial pruning, so that the vigor of the Pastoral Mandate can be matched by the tradition of doctrinal security.
Lionel:
Bishop Schneider has still to identify the premise used in the interpretation.If an irrational premise is used in the interpretation of any Church document it will emerge as a break with the past.
Meanwhile, the unrelenting cry for MOAR COUNCIL has a bizarre way of leading to the very abuses which The Council is supposed to have saved us. The Council cannot be a final harbor. It was a milestone, but the Church keeps moving, and I think the Church needs to either enforce the documents with a zeal that any “rad trad” would admire, or needs to admit that The V2 Experiment has failed.
Lionel:
The premise was not discovered.
The Church will–and must–go on, but, pragmatically speaking, The Spirit of The Council is the clear winner these days.
Lionel:
It is based on an irrational premise.
It is heroic of laymen to hold the magisterial line, but it is properly the duty of the episcopal college to get the led out and get our house in order. No “pastoral” strategy is guaranteed infallible immunity.
At the same time, I’m floored that unflinching defenders of Vatican II at least admit that the V2 documents shouldn’t but in fact can be read in a discontinuous, heterodox way. Can the same be said of any prior council?
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradicted the Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 And even if it could be, it was the purpose of a later council authoritatively to rectify such problems. No one in the hierarchy is seriously calling for such a correction. Everything Is Awesome. Except, darn it, this time we need to really implement The Council. There’s that creeping conspiracy theory again.
I don’t see how we can have it both ways. If V2 is to be judged not as a dogmatic intervention but as a pastoral endeavor, and should therefore not be held to such rigorous intellectual standards as prior councils, then the manifest deterioration and disorientation of the Church in certain ways should suffice to show how the pastoral endeavor has been derailed on its own terms.
Lionel:
It is the irrational premise which has resulted in a break with the dogmatic teachings on salvation.
 Rather than being read in an orthodox sense, the conciliar ambiguity in question 
Lionel:
There is no ambiguity if the false premise is not used.
reverses the entire hermeneutic by subjecting past teaching to endless debate and doubt in the superdogma event horizon that V2 has, despite its intended “humility”, become.
Lionel:
The  debates began after 1949 when it was assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 To cite prior councils is to be labeled a rad trad, which is pretty astounding a charge.
Lionel:
The liberals  use the false premise in the interpretation of the  Councils before 1949 and the 'rad trads' are still not aware of the false premise.They use it too.It is the basis for a theology of religions.The error is there in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican.
 As Brunero Gherardini had persuasively argued, what is need is not a declamation of continuity, but a demonstration of it, and the only possible resources for such a demonstration reside in the very things that get one labeled a rad trad.
Lionel:
The text of Vatican Council II is not a break with the past. It is inferring that all salvation mentioned in the Council is physically visible to us, an irrationality, which causes the problem.
 
 V2 is the most self-referential council in the Church’s history, which is why, like any spiraling mass, it sucks everything else into its gravitational pull, and contorts it all into a shape of its own making.
Lionel:
The text shows that it is traditional.The use of the irrational premise is a subtle error.
The documents were not presented as platforms of change. How could a merely pastoral council aim to extend or settle dogmatic issues? The entire premise of the council, at least officially, is that the Church was simply restating long-standing doctrine. Yet, there followed a torrent of adaptation and compromise which the documents had not explicitly decreed. By avoiding the pastoral latitude that it did, the council left the door open for “the spirit of Vatican II”,
Lionel:
It was not a pastoral latitude.
 which is, predictably enough, the impulse which has prevailed for decades. This is why the Church is in the tumult of a collective swing back to the center, and I am baffled why it’s so scandalous for Catholics to point out this disorientation and put V2 in its place, as it were. No one is meant to live at the peripheries of doctrinal coherence. The world has always been crazy. Human nature has not changed. It was the historical chauvinism of the V2 Fathers which led them to presume that the Church was in a new world. Blinded by a naive progressivism, the Fathers gave us a shining example of an old trick: orthodoxy can be defeated by a direct refutation or by being marginalized as optional.
Lionel:
It was neither of the two.
The latter strategy has been highly effective for decades now. Dogma doesn’t have to be changed in order to permit a revolution. It can simply be marginalized as irrelevant compared to more pressing Pastoral Needs of The People. Why deny objective truth when you can make it irrelevant?
Lionel:
With the false premise dogmas can be denied.It happened at Boston in 1949
-Lionel Andrades
 
http://ebougis.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/by-their-fruits/#comment-6050

How is Bishop Fellay going to announce that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake?

 Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) should realize by now that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre their founder, made a doctrinal mistake.
As mentioned in the previous post, the SSPX is rejecting Vatican Council II because Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has rejected it.
 
a) Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of Vatican Council II with or without the premise.He was not aware of the premise being the cause of the break with the past.
b) He did not notice the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He also assumed  that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Hindu in Tibet 1 can be saved in his religion, it is true, but we don't know any such case, defacto.The Hindu in Tibet is saved through Jesus and the Church, true, but he is not physically visible to us in the present times to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto, explicit exception.All need to convert into the Church in 2014 for salvation and the Hindu being saved in Tibet is irrelevant.It is a possibility, something theoretical.
 

Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that the baptism of desire was  visible to us and these cases were personally known to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.Otherwise why did he need to mention it ?.For him it was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Feeneyism.He picked up the error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The four SSPX bishops have since repeated the same irrationality.
 
Their founder  then extended the same error to Vatican Council II.It was the Cushingite error. This is the error of the deceased being visible exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water to aviod Hell.Archbishop Cushing and the Jesuits were active in Boston in 1949 and at Vatican Council II.The Jesuit Fr.Karl Rahner  placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger even though it was not inserted in the Act Apostolica Sedis. He used as a reference, an American magazine!
Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that being saved with ' ray of the Truth' (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc referred to visible for us cases.So  for him they were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
 
He used the same irrational thinking of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Without the Cushingite premise the Council would be traditional but he did not know it.
He was correct in rejecting  the general interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the premise. He was not aware though,that it was the premise which caused a break with the past.
Neither did the magisterium mention this at any time.So one cannot blame him.Even until today , after half a century, no Vatican office has issued  a correction.
 
 
Now, how is Bishop Fellay going to get the SSPX to accept all this ?!! 
-Lionel Andrades 

1

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.)

 

 

I affirm the traditional teaching on religious liberty,other religions and ecumenism, without rejecting Vatican Council II

It is said by the Society of St.Pius X (SOS) that Dignitatis Humanae(DH) contradicts the traditional teaching. DH refers to the religious liberty of non Catholics in a state with a secular Constituion and not a Catholic Confessional State. In a Catholic Confessional State of the past it was different.DH is observing a reality in a state with a secular Constituion.
For a Catholic there is no separation of Church and State and DH does not state that there is one.
Jesus is the only Saviour of the world and outside the Church there is no salvation (Ad Gentes 7) .So all political and social laws must have Jesus at its centre.They must be oriented to Jesus according to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. 
Other religions are false paths to salvation ( Ad Gentes 7) since outside the Church there is no known salvation in 2014.We do not know any one saved outside the Church and Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says all need to enter the Church as through a door(CCC 846).The Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CCC 845).
The main issue in Vatican Council II for the SSPX is other religions.When an irrational premise is used in the interpretation then Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the traditional teachings on other religions. 
Bishop Richard Williamson and the SSPX (SOS) priests use this irrational premise. So does Bishop Bernard Fellay and the other SSPX bishops. 
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. The Christian communities (Protestants etc) do not have Catholic Faith, which include the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church. They need to convert for salvation.
So on other religions and ecumenism Vatican Council II is traditional.
Without the premise Vatican Council II has the hermenutic of continuity and says  all need 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation.NA 2,UR3,LG16,LG8 etc refer to possibilities known only to God,.They refer to hypothetical cases for us. So they are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism).
There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism. Vatican Council is Feeneyite without the false premise of the dead being visible exceptions to Tradition. With the visible-dead premise the Council is Cushingite and heretical.The SSPX  is using the Cushingite version of Vatican Council II.This is the version approved by the Jewish Left and the Vatican Curia.This is the version used by Monsgr.Gherardini, Roberto de Mattei, and Fr. Siano and Fr.Lanzetta of the Franciscans of the Immaculate(FFI).
So I can affirm the traditional teaching on other religions, religious liberty and ecumenism, without rejecting Vatican Council II.
The SSPX is rejecting Vatican Council II because Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has rejected it.
1) He was not aware of Vatican Council II with or without the premise.He was not aware of the premise being the cause of the break with the past.
2) He did not notice the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He also assumed  that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Hindu in Tibet can be saved in his religion, this is true, but we don't know any such case, defacto.He is saved through Jesus and the Church, true, but he is not an explicit case to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
So it must always be clarified,as I mentioned in an earlier post, if one is referring to a Vatican Council II with or without the irrational premise.





Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7 indicates most people are on the way to Hell without 'faith and baptism'.
This is what I believe. This is how I interpret Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II does not say that salvation in Heaven is visible to us.It does not say there is known salvation outside the Church.It does not state that Nostra Aetate 2Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8 are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The text does not make this inference.So I do not use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
This is how I interpret the Council.
It is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors,the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Council of Trent and the rest of Tradition.There is no  hermenutic of rupture.
We have found the missing link, the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
We now know what makes Vatican Council II traditional or non traditional.It is: the false premise!.
We need to target the false inference and the theological train will get back on the rails.
Identify the premise and change the Church!
-Lionel Andrades