Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The Dallas blog does not know there is a choice : pre and post Vatican Council II can be reconciled

The pre and post Vatican Council II approaches to Judaism can be reconciled if the interpretation is done with Feeneyism, instead of common Cushingism. With Feeneyism Vatican Council II says there is no salvation outside the Church, there is no known salvation outside the Church.
With Feeneyism Vatican Council II says there is no known salvation of non Catholics allegedly saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) or seeds of the Word (AG 11).
So there can be no contradiction in Vatican Council II to the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There is no change in the Church's teachings on other religions and ecumenism. Since there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology.
The popes since Pius XII have been interpreting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism. So for them there are known exceptions to all needing to formally convert into the Church.
After Vatican Council II this was the reasoning used to interpret the Council documents, which can also be interpreted with traditional Feeneyism,for those who discern.
For me there is no change in the pre and post Vatican Council II Church according to Vatican Council II.
The change is there for the contemporary magisterium which uses Cushingism and this is politically acceptable to the Jewish Left, the dominant Jewish ideological group.
So when the writer of the Dallas Blog says there  is no reconciliation, of course he has accepted Cushingism as interpreted by the Magisterium and does not know that there is a choice.
The pre- and post-VII approaches to Judaism cannot be reconciled
by Tantumblogo 
Just a bit of evidence from the Haydock Study Bible from the Book of Zacharias, chapter XIII that the post-conciliar modernist/indifferentist reproachement with Jews is impossible to reconcile with the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  There was disturbing news last week when Cardinal Kurt Koch, a severe modernist, announced that the Church was formally rejecting any missionary outreach to Jews, because they still have a valid covenant something something blah blah even though Christ Himself said that without faith in Him as the Messiah of all humanity one could not be saved (yes yes, this is not the post to discuss the finer points of that Doctrine). 
 This is the Christocentric approach based on the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the theology of Cushingism.It is magisterial.It was  accepted also by Archbishop Lefebvre, Michael Davis and the traditionalists of their time. There was no one to point out the error. The popes accepted the error, the irrational theology, and so did the traditionalists and liberals.
 The prophecies from Zacharias point directly at Jesus Christ, and indicate that false prophets and adherents to false religions shall be destroyed:
And there shall be in all the earth, saith the Lord, two parts in it shall be scattered, and shall perish: but the third part shall be left therein.
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say: Thou art my people: and they shall say: The Lord is my God.
What I found even more interesting, however, was the commentary provided by Fr. George Leo Haydock on this important bit of Scripture:
The greatest part of mankind will be lost. (Haydock) --- The few Jews who embrace the faith will be absorbed in the Gentile converts, and suffered to live, though proved by persecutions, while the rest shall be exterminated. Both shall lose their name, and be styled Christians.
Those who adhere to Judaism, or to paganism, cannot be saved. This is the privilege only of Christian Catholics, who live piously, and are selected by God's grace.
Now certainly, this is no dogmatic statement.  It's the opinion of several Catholic Scripture scholars quoted.  But it reveals the enormous dichotomy in practical belief that separates the pre- and post-conciliar Church. 
Vatican Council II is dogmatic.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
 This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
 The Haydock commentary was compiled between roughly 1780 and 1810.  The view presented in this commentary on Zachariais xiii:8 was solid, middle of the road orthodoxy at that time.
Its orthodoxy was expressed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Vatican Council II supports. Here is the text of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

  • “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
  • “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
  • “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

    And this view continued to be solid, unquestioned orthodoxy until the latter half of the 20th century, specifically, until the "fruit" of Vatican II. 
    With the Letter of the Holy Office (1949) to the Archbishop of Boston the Catholic Church officially switched, from Feeneyism to Cushingism.
     Now we have heads of major Vatican dicasteries proclaiming that not only can Jews be saved even given their explicit rejection of Jesus Christ (and for many modern day Jews, this rejection is a fundamental part of their identity),
    They have been saying this since 1949 with the new theology, the new ecclesiology based on the Cushing irrational premise and inference.Cushingism says being saved with the baptism of desire and blood, refer to non Catholics in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.They are exceptions to the traditional teaching. So there are some known persons according to Cushingism who do not need to accept Jesus in the Church.This reasoning is accepted by the traditionalists.The Vatican Document on the Jews is a continuation of this reasoning.
    but they are in such an assured position for salvation that the Church should absolutely refuse  to permit any efforts to convert Jews to faith in Jesus Christ! 
    This statement has its theological base in Cushinigsm. It was accepted publically in 1949, though the seeds of the error were placed in the Baltimore Catechism (1808). The baptism of desire and blood were considered explicit by the Baltimore Catechism and were placed in the section on the necessity of baptism. The Catechism of Pope Pius X picked up the error.
    Liberals say that the Council of Trent mentioned 'the desirethereof' in the baptism section.So the confusion comes from there.
    The bottom line still is : Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism and the conclusion will be different. It is the same text of Vatican Council II but with different results. One is non traditional and heretical and the other is traditional and rational.With Cushingism and Feeneyism we have the hermeneutic of rupture or continuity in Vatican Council II. This is the precise cause- the theology.
     To justify this belief, these modern-day leaders point to the disastrous declaration Nostra Aetate, and not without some justification, for that declaration does seem to set Jews apart in their own special, continuing covenant with God, no matter how much this declaration is at odds with Scripture and Tradition.
    It is the contemporary magisterium and the Jewish Left's political interpretation of Nostra Aetate. There is nothing in Nostra Aetate to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad  Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.
    It's just another small example of the numerous aspects of Vatican II that simply cannot be reconciled with the constant belief and practice of the Faith, even to the level of contradicting solemnly defined Dogma.
    It is another example also of a traditionalist not affirming Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 in agreement with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus to counter the propaganda of the leftists, in and outside the Church.

    Vox Cantoris recently agreed on his blog that AG 7 and LG 14 were traditional on salvation.
      I'm sorry, but these two approaches cannot, in any sane sense, be reconciled and explained away.
     Yes we cannot reconcile Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism and Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism.The present Cushingite interpretation, that of the new theology, is a break with Tradition, the Syllabus of Errors etc.

    There is no way to reconcile "Jews cannot not, in a general, objective sense, be saved" with Cardinal Koch's command forbidding efforts to convert Jews because "Nostra Aetate....professes.....[that] a replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations."
    Yes this cannot be reconciled.
    Since Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite ecclesiology) indicates they needs to convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' to avoid the fires of Hell.
    They need to accept the Jewish Messiah and live the traditional  teachings of the Catholic Church, the Church which he founded.
    Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version) can be reconciled with the past ecclesiology, with Tradition.
    These things simply cannot coexist.  They cannot be reconciled.  This is a radical repudiation of the constant belief and practice of the Church.  It is, an awful novelty
    The novelty is Cushingism.It has to be identified and corrected and then the theological train will be back on the rails.Things will be rational once again.

     and an even larger error, and it is grounded in an indifferentism that is concerned far more with not offending Jewish wealth and temporal power than it is seeing souls saved for all eternity. 
    However the traditionalists blogs at least could point out the difference between Vatican Council II according to Cushingism and Feeneyism.
    Presently the Vatican wants the Society of St. Pius X and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism. While the magisterium does not affirm Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism.
    Why don't the bloggers ask the Vatican also too accept Vatican Council II ?

     But it's also part and parcel of the kind of worldly, materialist, indifferentist mentality that has dominated in the Church these past several decades.
    Cushingism is magisterial and no one has complained. It is there in Redemptoris Missio and two theological papers of the International Theological Commission and also forms part of the ecclesiology of the Balamand Declaration.No one noticed it, not even Christopher Ferrara and John Vennari
    -Lionel Andrades

    AKA Catholic
    Louie Verrecchio still doesn't get it :there is a theology of Cushingism and Feeneyism

    Traditionalists are still interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism

    No comments: