Sunday, July 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 5

4. Questions: In your work on Vatican II, after having dealt extensively with the problem of the conciliar teaching as an act of magisterium, you focus on the question of the Council’s position regarding the theological qualification of its very doctrines. The theories of those who made of it a “superdogma” (to use the expression of the then Cardinal Ratzinger), or in other words, the beginning of a “new Christianity” before which anything “pre-conciliar” is to be rejected, have emerged in these post-conciliar years.
Lionel: Yes.Since Vatican Council II with the Cushing theology has changed the Nicene Creed, rejected the Syllabus of Errors, rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, made the Athanasius Creed obsolete and provided theological exceptions for the doctrine on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.It has  created new doctrines in salvation theology.
 In this sense, coherently, they are surpassed by the theorists of the “spirit of the Council”, for whom Vatican II must go beyond itself: it is prolonged in the praxis that surpasses the “spirit”, to the point of exhausting (and emptying) it in this movement. Likewise, there are those who (they would say with a “conservatory” attitude) have “dogmatised” all the conciliar texts, making themselves their jealous propagators and aggressive custodians, but are paradoxically proved wrong by the very same conciliar texts. Could you indicate what are your theological conclusions in this regard?
Lionel: His theological conclusions would be limited. Since he is unaware of the possibility of interpreting Vatican Council II without the 1949 Letter. Fr.Lanzetta sees Vatican Council II as do the liberal theologians.This is the theology being enforced by the liberal magisterium of the present times.
Answer: It is particularly disconcerting to see how the Second Vatican Council has been “bent”, not without deliberate coercions, to the most varied interpretations that are all fundamentally ascribable to an over-estimation of the last council, with respect not only to all the other previous ones, but also to the Church’s history and the very mystery of the Church. Of course, if we start from the idea that between the first and the third Christian millennium there is a historical and conciliar gap – as the so-called “Bologna School” does – then Vatican II certainly serves to fill this void that was suddenly created. Undoubtedly, not all the councils were dogmatic like Trent and Vatican I, but certainly no council was pastorally dogmatic or dogmatically pastoral as Vatican II is made to become from time to time, both when it is made to rise as a new beginning and the North Star of the solemn and supreme magisterium of the Church, as well as when, in order to protect its new doctrines, they are “infallibilised” without realising that the Council itself does not desire this. What we ask ourselves however, is the “why” of such a tenacity on Vatican II. Maybe because it was supposed to represent the banner for a certain Catholicism which was very quickly auto-defined post-conciliar? A new “style” of being the Church and Christians? They do not realise that precisely this effort is to the detriment of the Council itself, reducing it to a dam, to a “super dogma” that in fact relativizes faith and morals.

Following the historical development of the idea of the council and its form (see the first chapter of my book), it is interesting to learn that it is not the juridical concept of “representation” (a council represents the Church) that defines a council in the strict sense – the conciliarists of the XIV century had mastered this concept in order to subordinate the Pope to the council – but rather the need, that was already felt at the first ecumenical council of Nicea, to defend the faith and to teach the truth: the greatest spiritual gift. The issue of a council has never been its infallibility, but the necessity to teach the truth.
Lionel: Here is where the liberal traditionalists fail. Since they do not teach the truth. They teach new doctrines created by liberal theologicans and approved by the contemporary magisterium. Heresy is innocently mistaken for being Catholic truth and here Fr. Lanzetta  is not aware of it.Joseph Shaw would be aware of it but he will not get the approval of the English bishops to announce it clearly in public. He will also be censored by his colleagues as a professor of philosophy and theology at the liberal Oxford University, England.The political Left will accept Lanzetta and Shaw's criticism Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.They praise Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
The Left would not expect Lanzetta and Shaw to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and so the Council would be traditional and dogmatic in ecclesiology, salvation theology, ecumenism and religious liberty.
Of course Lanzetta and Shaw could go ahead and speak the truth and say Vatican Council II can be interpreted with hypothetical cases not being explicit.So then the Council would not contradict the old ecclesiology but then they could lose their worldly and clerical-religious privileges.
The Latin Mass Society, England officially promotes liberal theology with a traditionalist veneer.

Also those who see Vatican II as a break from Tradition, in my humble opinion, over-estimates the Council, dogmatising and infallibilising each of its doctrines, even those that are more dispositions or pastoral teachings relative to times, which were judged as new.
Lionel: With Cushingism, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. It is heretical.This is obvious.
 If, in the judgement of some theologians, a solid biblical foundation is missing in order to establish, in the external forum, religious liberty as a foundation of a Christian State, from which “tolerance” towards the exercise of other religious cult is derived, how much more unsteady will such a biblical foundation be when one places all religions, because such, on the same level with regard to the exercise of cult in civil society, leaving to the laity the responsibility of announcing the Gospel to all?  Does the State no longer have any obligation towards God and the religio vera? I refer, to the example of positive religious liberty (exercised in the external forum) because it is one of the most debated subjects, whereas negative religious liberty remains biblically and traditionally clear (no matter of faith can be forced on someone’s conscience). This is one of the topics, perhaps the most heated, that requires like others, greater elasticity. It is necessary for Vatican II to be both read and interpreted for what it is, according to its mens, and not according to a personal (political) inclination towards the ecclesiastical right or left-wing, or a subjective sensitivity towards the conservative or progressive. Already in 1968 Dietrich von Hildebrand proved that a mere contraposition between conservatism and progressivism is simply sterile: the point is either truth or prevarication, the truth or a “spiritual house of cards”.
Lionel:Dietrich von Hildebrand was not aware of an alternative interpretation of Vatican Council II, without the mistake of the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney. The alternative was also unknown to Archbishop Lefebvre and Michael Davis. Roberto dei Mattei still does not comment on this.

user img
For this purpose, based on other studies that have been published along the same line, it has been my desire to interrogate the Council as such. I have sought to re-discover – as far as it has been granted to me and save for a better judgement – the mens of the Vatican on certain key doctrines. The theologian is interested in understanding above all, so as to move with surety, the grade of magisterial teaching of the doctrines that we have before us. Precisely because this is not always clear, it is necessary to have recourse to a systematic study of the Council’s sources.
Lionel: Fr.Lanzetta continues in circles.
 The grade of magisterial teaching to which corresponds a theological note and on the other hand, a theological censure – I re-engage the topic of notes and censures that are so indispensable to the theological discussion –, with which to indicate a doctrine, allows us to examine the conciliar doctrines in a sure way; and there, where one finds the need because dealing with doctrines not yet definitively taught, to also be able to indicate some suggestions for an organic dogmatic progress, realised in any case by the Church’s magisterium. Upon examining these doctrines, which are among the most important and significant in the whole magisterial structure: Scripture-Tradition, members of the Church/belonging to the Church, episcopal collegiality, the mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Christ and in the Church, I have reached the conclusion that we find ourselves before truths to which could be attributed the following theological note:“sententiae ad fidem pertinentes”, that is doctrines “upon which magisterium has not yet pronounced itself definitively, whose negation could lead to placing other truths of the faith in danger and whose truth is guaranteed by their intimate connection with revelation” (see pp. 423-432 of my book). A subsequent dogmatic development would still be possible for these doctrines, to reach the grade “definitive tenenda” and higher still, to their proclamation as dogma of faith. For a fair number of theologians in Council, only the question of the “sacramentality of the episcopate” is a definitive doctrine. Also on this point, however, there is no unanimity.
Lionel: Fr. Lanzetta approves of a development of doctrine. He is a liberal theologian who offers the Traditional Latin Mass.Similarly Joseph Shaw is a liberal theologian who attends the Latin Mass without the ecclesiology of the pre-Council of Trent times.They are like Fr. Z who appreciates the vestments and liturgy of the Latin Mass along with with the new, non controversial ecclesiology. They do not object to the  politically correct, heretical ecclesiology which must accompanies the Latin Mass liturgy.They do not even comment upon it. This is the ecclesiology which is being objected to by the SSPX and the sedevacantists.

The verification of the so-called “mens Sanctae Synodus” could be seen by some as a light-hearted or even dangerous exercise, since it is up to the Magisterium to justify itself. Such a cutting off however, would abolish the very being of theology and contradict the repeated invites of the Council’s General Secretariat to read the proposed doctrines from the conciliar magisterium (not dogmatically defined nor held definitively, which would not require any interpretation because self-explanatory and would therefore be clear) with the spirit of the Council itself, a spirit that can be deduced from the subject dealt with and from the manner of expression, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.

The distinctiveness of my work consists in the fact that, with the aim of faithfully interpreting these doctrines of the Council, I avail myself of numerous first-hand sources. The numerous expert reports of theologians of the Doctrinal Commission were of great importance to my work, and which in the hierarchy of fonts, are to be placed at a much higher level than personal diaries, following straight after the Synodal Acts. They constitute the most authentic testimonies of what the theological mind of the Council prepared for the discussions, modifying or improving them based on the Council discussions, accepting or not the so-called modi presented by the Fathers. It is not hard to find the theological theses of various experts of the majority positions within the Commission. To follow the discussion of the Doctrinal Commission step-by-step is of great epistemic help in order to correctly evaluate the discussions of the Fathers in session.
Lionel: Cushingism was the dominant theology at Vatican Council II. There are so many superflous passages in the Council. These are passages which are the conclusion of an objective error.The Council Fathers assumed that the magisterium had rejected the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS since thoughout Vatican Council II (1962-1965) the Masons maintained the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney.Those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church would be excommunicated was the message.Fr.Feeney  was not presenting a new theology like Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits.
This is the first Council which has erred on such a grand scale.They overlooked a factual error and then built a whole new fantasy theology upon it, to reject Tradition.The objective error indicates that this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Council with the Cushingite theology is the work of human error  or even diabolical intervention.
 The Fathers frequently depended on their theologians, but their theology did not always depend on the Church’s Tradition. This is also a factor that one must bear in mind, and that can settle, so I think, many discussions that are still open regarding the correct hermeneutics of the Second Vatican Council.- Serafino M. Lanzetta
Lionel: Vatican Council II was based on a new irrational theology which depended on hypothetical cases being explicit. This theology is not permanent. If we assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical, we still have many superflous passages in Vatican Council II, but we can interpret the Council as not contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction and not contradicting the old ecclesiology based on the strict interpretation of EENS.
Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph Shaw need to correct themself and then they will have a new perspective on the Council.
When they assume there are exceptions to the dogma EENS, as does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, they infer that there are personally known people in the present times ( 2016) who are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.So they are saying that every one needs to enter the Church but some people do not. Every one needs to be a Catholic for salvation, since this is the dogmatic teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and EENS but some people do not(like those in invincible ignorance etc).This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The new theology violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. This can be seen in the Letter(1949) where the second part of the Letter is Cushingite and contradicts the first part ( Feeneyite).
It can can be seen in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation but some do not ( invincible ignorance etc).

There are passages in Vatican Council II which are orthodox on salvation and these passages are followed by ambigous passages based on Cushingism and the new theology.So we now have 'a new faith', based on a violation of simple reasoning and philosophy.It contradicts Aristotles Principle of Non Contradiction.It has been approved in Vatican Council II.How can this error be the teaching of the Holy Spirit?-Lionel Andrades.

JULY 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 4

No comments: