Friday, July 29, 2016

David Domet a dissenter?

From David Domet's blog Vox Cantoris
Vox Cantoris:
I find it interesting.

When I was a young lad, the dissenters in the Church were all the rage. It was so bad, I eventually left. I never really lost my faith, but the Church was enough of a mess that I lost interest. I was typical of someone growing up in the 1960's.
So was I.

After a rather hedonistic period of life, I returned to the Church and to the Faith as it was taught to me by my parents and the good priests of my parish.
Vox here is the cut off point. Even I was following the faith taught to me by good priests and my parents and relatives.I was born in 1954 and there was the influence of my good grandmother and I remember the solemn Latin Mass as a kid and the teachings on Hell and sin and exclusive salvation in the Church.
But as a teenager the good priests stopping talking about Hell and they were interpreting Vatican Council and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with hypothetical cases being explicit .So the conclusion was a break with the traditional teachings of my grandmother and other good priests.I was not aware of any of this at that time.

It was a long road of return, including a long period of time in the cafeteria line.
Same here.I was an ultra liberal. I was interested in theology and would subscribe(actually pay for it)  to a Jesuit theological magazine issued from Delhi, India(Vidyajyoti).

I had forgotten about the traditional Mass but came back to it and then became convicted by it for what I had become.
But you would attend the traditional and the Novus Ordo Mass interpreting Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS with an irrationality. I do not.
So when Fr.Rosica criticizes you for not accepting Vatican Council II and being a traditionalist I know he cannot say the same thing for me.Since I affirm the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church,with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.So there is no change in the Church's teachings in 2016 as compared to the time when you and I were kids.
This is the difference between you and me.
You are allowing Fr.Rosica to call you a dissenter since you will not affirm Vatican Council II with LG 16 being invisible and not invisible and then asking him to do the same.
With LG 16 being visible instead of invisible it is Fr. Rosica who is really the dissenter.But you do not know about it still.

I practice the Faith today as my parents did, and as we did together, as a family.
No you don't.You are a liberal.You interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS. I do not. You do not interpret Vatican Council II and EENS as I do. So my faith is a break with the teachings of my parents(1960's) but not a break with the teachings of the Church, when my grandmother had her religious formation(1930's and 1940's).
I hope you understand what I am saying.
From my perspective it is both you and Fr. Rosica, who are using an irrationality ( visible-dead cases of BOD in 2016) to reject Catholic dogma and doctrines and this is acceptable to the contemporary magisterium.You both have a rational and traditional choice like me.But may be you both are still unaware of it.

Today, I am a dissenter.
Yes since you consider LG 16 as being visible for us and so it is a break with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors and so you reject Vatican Council II( Cushingite).For me this is heresy.It is the same with Fr.Rosica.He  wants you to accept Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and be a dissenter like him.It would also be heresy.You have an option.But you are not taking it.
You are already using his philosophical reasoning. You only have to reject his irrational premise and  heretical conclusion and you will not be a dissenter, for him.Since then he cannot fault you for rejecting Vatican Council II(Cushingite).Instead you would be accepting Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and asking him to do the same.

If I have not changed, and I am the dissenter, what does it say about them?
You have changed.Your interpretation of the dogma EENS and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is not the teaching of the Church from pre Council of Trent times. You have come in line with the new theology.The new theology is dissent from Catholic orthodoxy and you use it to interpret magisterial documents.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: