Sunday, July 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Book launch 20th July in London:

Fr Lanzetta: Vatican II, a

 Pastoral Council

The Latin Mass Society is sponsoring a book  launch in London
 for Fr Serafino Lanzetta's  book:20th July, from 6:30pm, in 
the basement  of St Mary Moorfields, Eldon Street, London,
 concluding with Vespers at 8pm with the  Schola
 Gregoriana of Cambridge.
Lionel: Dr.Joseph  Shaw and
 Fr. Lanzetta are 
liberal traditionalists.
 They interpret Vatican 
Council II with politically 
correct Cushingsm. 
This is approved by the
 ecclesiastical hierarchy 
in Britain.Cushingism as a
 theology is based on an
 irrational premise and
This violates the Principle of Non
Contradiction.The result is a 
hermeneutic of rupture, a
 break with Tradition.

Fr Lanzetta's book is being published in English for the
 first time, by Gracewing. Its translation into English
 was sponsored by the Latin Mass Society.

Below is a written interview with Fr Lanzetta
 about his book.
Vatican II, a pastoral Council
The Key-Problem of its 
Interview with Fr. Serafino M. Lanzetta about his
 latest work“Vatican II: A Pastoral Council. 
Hermeneutics of Council Teaching”, with a 
foreword by Rt. Rev. Philip Egan, 
Gracewing 2016, 528 pp. (or. It. Il 
Vaticano II, un concilio pastorale.
 Ermeneutica delle dottrine conciliari,
 Siena 2014). This Interview appeared
 originally in French, for the Journal
 “Catholica” 125 (2014). The questions
 have been formulated by the same 
1. Question: The Second Vatican
 Council poses first and foremost 
an epistemological problem even
 before a theological one, or rather
 to be precise, it poses a problem 
that, in as much as it is theological,
 is also necessarily epistemological. 
Are we talking about the interpretation
 or the understanding of its 
documents? The very interpretation
 is, in fact, a problem, both in 
the modern perspective of the 
constructivist interpretation and in
 the post-modern view of the
 deconstructivist interpretation.
 The interpretation does not explain
 the interpretation: in itself, it refers
 to a basic principle. More than
 being a solution, every
 interpretation is itself a problem
 within a problem. In the light of 
your studies, what do you think of this?
Lionel: Epistemology refers to 
 how does one know what
 one knows,, what is the source
 of ones knowledge,how does 
one reason philosophically.
Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph Shaw 
reason, philosophically, that there
 are known cases of the baptism
 of desire. They then
 assume that these cases are explicit,
 seen in the flesh in the present 
times. They then conclude that
 these 'objective cases' are objective
 exceptions to the dogma extra 
ecclesiam nulla salus.
So with this philosophical reasoning
 they interpret Vatican Council II (LG
 16, UR 3 etc) as being a doctrinal 
break with the dogma extra ecclesiam 
nulla salus.This was also the reasoning
 of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
They both accept this reasoning in the
Letter as do the bishops in England.
They apply it Vatican Council II. So
 doctrinally and pastorally, for them 
Vatican is a break with the
 traditional ecclesiology and the
 traditional salvation theology.
Answer: Hermeneutics, namely the
 interpretation of a text, and in our 
case of a Magisterial text, is never
 the solution to a problem but only
 the instrument with which to 
reach a solution, making reference
 to a basic principal(sic) that precedes
 the interpretation and the very 
development of the text. This
 principle is the faith of the Church,
 namely the organic development 
of her doctrine.
Lionel: He refers to an organic
 development of doctrine as do 
the liberal theologians and the 
contemporary magisterium.
Without the irrational reasoning,
 mentioned above, the
 interpretation of Vatican
 Council II would still be traditional
 with no 'development'.
It is only by adding an irrational 
premise ( LG 16-(invincible 
ignorance, refers to explicit cases,
 objectively known in2016) that
 there is an irrational and non
 traditional conclusion( there 
are physically visible cases of 
persons saved without the 
baptism of water in the Catholic
 Church.So there are objective 
exceptions  to traditional EENS).
In my opinion, the problem is two fold. 
We must first of all realise that there is
 an interpretation problem of the texts
 of the Second Vatican Council. The
 texts – as every text, for that matter
 – are the object of a twofold 
interpretation depending on the
 method one adopts: that of “discontinuity
 and rupture”, or that of “renewal 
in the continuity” as Pope Benedict
 XVI told us.
Lionel: It is the irrational premise
 and conclusion which decides the
 hermeneutic of continuity or rupture.
When LG 16 is considered to be
 explicit there is a hermeneutic of 
rupture. When LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,
 NA 2 etc are seen as implicit
 and invisible for us in 2016, there 
is a hermeneutic of continuity.Doctrine
 has changed('developed') and this
 is reflected in action(praxis), pastorally.
 In other words, the choice of the hermeneutic 
approach depends on our concept of Church:
 what is the Church?
Lionel: Yes it depends on what theology
 is used. Cushingism  says
 there are known exceptions to EENS
 in the present times. Feeneyism 
says there cannot be 
known exceptions to EENS humanly
 speaking.Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph
 Shaw are Cushingites as are the
 present  two popes.
 A permanent synodality that becomes
 aware of itself in history through the 
extraordinary convocation of a council?
 Or a mystery that precedes time and
 becomes incarnated in history to then
 later surpass it in eternity? This means,
 from a theological point of view,
 to give to hermeneutics which is 
born in an existentialist and 
post-metaphysical context, an
 objective foundation in the mystery 
that one wants to study: in our case,
 a council in relation to the Church.
 Otherwise, we run the risk of making
 the method a solution, in a continuous
 and absorbing interpretation.
Lionel: You simply avoid the
 irrational premise and conclusion
 and the hermeneutic changes. We 
are back to the old understanding
 of what is the Church ( ecclesiology).
Having ascertained the fundamental
 approach to the hermeneutic method,
 a typical theme of modernity, one can 
also clarify another problem.
Lionel: He  does not understand
 what determines the hermeneutic of
 rupture and continuity.
 It is not enough to clarify the 
hermeneutic approach and choose
 that which is consonant with the theme,
 it is necessary to go to the texts, the 
conciliar texts, by means of the
 hermeneutical method. In other 
words, it is not enough to choose 
the hermeneutic of “renewal in the 
continuity” in order to resolve the 
problem of the texts of Vatican II 
(admitting that at the epistemological
 level it has been recognised as such), 
but we must then apply it so as to allow
 the continuity to be seen, to 
demonstrate it, or rather, just show
 it. If the method, the approach, was
 the solution and not the point of 
departure, it would be enough to state
 it and to overcome the problem.
 In reality, if we read carefully Benedict
 XVI’s discourse to the Roman Curia 
(22 December 2005), we see how
 the Pontiff after having stated the 
correct hermeneutical principal(sic)
 as opposed to the erroneous one
 of rupture, goes on straight away
 to verify it in the example of
 religious liberty.
Lionel: Pope Benedict uses the new 
theology, which is based on 
Cushingism. It is a rejection of
 the dogma EENS as it was 
known to the 16th century
 missionaries.So theologically
 for him there are exceptions
 to all needing to formally enter
 the Church. So there has to be 
exceptions to the teaching on 
the Social Reign of Christ the 
King.Why does all legislation
 need to have as its center 
Jesus and the Church, for 
Pope Benedict, when there
 is known salvation outside
 the Church?
Pope Benedict and Fr. Lanzetta's
'new theology' is based on
 known salvation outside the 
Church.It  is a rupture with 
Tradition.Fr.Lanzetta uses this 
new theology to interpret
 Unitatitis Redintigratio and
 the rest of Vatican Council II.
If  he affirmed EENS
 ( Feeneyite), however, and used
the Feeneyite reasoning Vatican Council
 II would be Feeneyite on
 religous liberty.His 
understanding of knowledge,
 its source and definition
 in Vatican Council II 
( epistemology) would
 also change.
 He reaffirms that principles do not
 change, whereas the historical
 forms that bear those principles
 are in themselves subject to change.
Lionel: Philosophically he 
is contradicting the Principle
 of Non Contradiction.
This would be expected
 with an irrational premise.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: