The mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was transferred on to Vatican Council II. In many passages in the Council there are references to hypothetical cases. These hypothetical cases are interpreted as being objective and known in the present times.So this is the new theology with which Vatican Council II is interpreted with.
It was similar to 1949 when the baptism of desire for instance, was a hypothetical case but it was assumed to be explicit and known in personal cases. So it was wrongly assumed to be relevant and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was a mistake.
However today he hypothetical cases (LG 16 etc) in Vatican Council II can be interpreted as just being hypothetical.They are not objective exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. So Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the old theology, on other religions and Christian communities.This is hard to believe for many Catholics. Since they are so conditioned to read Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objective,that they cannot believe there can be such a dramatic change in our interpretation of the Council.
Yet it is there before us. Any one can check it out and announce it.
So when Pope Francis now says that the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II , for him, there is only a Vatican Council II in which hypothetical references are considered to be objective in the present times.It is a Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise to reach a non traditional conclusion.
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
1.The premise is that there are known cases of people saved outside the Church without the baptism of water.
2.The premise is there is known salvation outside the Church.
3.The premise is that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
4.The premise is that we humans can physically see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
5.The premise is that we humans can know of people on earth in the present times, who will be saved without formal membership in the Catholic Church.
NON TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION
The conclusion is that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.
The conclusion is not every one needs 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
The conclusion is that there could be an Anonymous Christian saved in a Christian community, Protestant or Pentecostal, who believes in Jesus and this is enough or salvation.Since it is not necessary to formally enter the Church any more.
The conclusion is that there could be a non Christian, Hindus, Buddhist, saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church, without him having to formally enter the Catholic Church.
Etc.Etc.
In the previous post 1. I mentioned that there is a factual error in Vatican Council II and the SSPX does not want to admit it and so say that they were wrong all these years and the two popes do not want to admit it and say that the Council supports the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) .They both have their interests.The St.Benedict Centers, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, also do not want to comment on this issue since they have made the same mistake as the SSPX on Vatican Council II
This month Archbishop Forte quoted Pope Francis saying 'do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”
The premises are there in Vatican Council and the popes draw a conclusion which is a break with Tradition and so they welcome this non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.
I interpret Vatican Council II without the premise and so the conclusion is not a break with Tradition.
For Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper interpreting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise, would be unthinkable.
Similarly in another post 2 I wrote that Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider, like Pope Francis, have accepted that there is salvation outside the Church. Since for both of them being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to objective cases. They would have to be objective for them to be exceptions to EENs.This was the thinking of the cardinals who issued and approved the Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
They inferred that I.I and BOD were explicit.
They assumed hypothetical cases of the the BOD and I.I were explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite traditional interpretation of EENS. In other words they could physically meet or see persons saved without the baptism of water and who did not need to formally convert into the Church. They could know someone on earth who would be saved without formally having to enter the Church.
This cannot be known to human beings!
It is with this error that Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of discontinuity with Tradition.
If Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider avoid this error Vatican Council II is not a break with the past.
1.They both simply have to understand there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance in 2016.This is factual. There cannot be any such known case.
2.They have to simply understand that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II refers to hypothetical cases and not objectively known exceptions to EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
This means there is no known salvation outside the Church, past or present.
This is an important point for the re-conciliation of the SSPX with the Vatican.
Doctrinally the Vatican is in error but the SSPX bishops and priests, are not aware of it.They all see the vague result of Vatican Council II being a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors but are unaware that this rupture is caused by assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known.If this error is avoided Vatican Council II would be traditional. Then the liberals and Masons would have a problem with Vatican Council II and not the SSPX.It is Pope Francis who would feel uncomfortable with the traditionalist Council.- Lionel Andrades
1.
There is still hope that the SSPX can turn things around without compromising on Vatican Council II ( interpreted with the irrrational premise and conclusion)
There is still hope that the SSPX can turn things around without compromising on Vatican Council II ( interpreted with the irrrational premise and conclusion)
2.
May be someone who is in contact with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider could ask them these two questions and send me their response
May be someone who is in contact with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider could ask them these two questions and send me their response
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment