Sunday, July 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -3

2. Question: From reading the documents of Vatican II, it clearly emerges that it is the Council itself that poses the problem of the Council. It would be enough to refer to the first note of the introduction to Gaudium et spes to realise it. The Council itself appears needy of explanations: the case of the Nota explicativa praevia is emblematic. The conciliar texts objectively highlight the questions opened by themselves. To remember this simply means to take the documents seriously. To interdict discussion (on the grounds of a misunderstood “respect”, which is implicitly equivalent to an irrationalist conception of power) certainly does not contribute to clarifying the matter. The prohibition to ask questions – as Eric Voegelin has reminded us – is proper to (gnostic) ideologies. This differs from authentic theological intelligence, which is in itself, open to face questions and discussions. In your opinion, to what point are the analyses of the various problems open?
Answer: The hermeneutical problem of the Second Vatican Council does not originate simply after, during the receptive phase of the conciliar magisterium, but already in the phases of the conciliar assizes. It is very surprising to see how the theme of the Council’s pastorality, sometimes inflected as “aggiornamento” (a word never used in the papal discourses during the Council, but by John XXIII in reference to the Code of Canon Law in his speech for the convocation of the Roman Synod, and consequently of the new Council) was to be a key for passing from the schemes that had been justly prepared for the conciliar discussion, to the new schemes that arose from this discussion, and above all, from the heated theological disputes of the experts. For example, the prepared scheme De fontibus Revelationis, in the opinion of many, should have been rejected as such, because it was not very “pastoral” and furthermore, did not respond to the intentions of John XXIII in his opening speech Gaudet mater ecclesia. This manner of proceeding was like the leitmotiv in the discussion. The problem, however, was to establish what “pastoral” actually meant and if John XXIII had really wanted to pose pastorality (understood per se already in a new way) against the manner of proceeding of the previous Ecumenical Councils. This was the problem that was readdressed from time to time by the orators in session, most of all, regarding the more important schemes, such as that on the Church, which required an interpretation of the mens of the Pope. This would then require an interpretation of the mens of the Council itself. In fact, the manner of interpreting “pastorality” in relation to the opening speech, will orient the majority of the Council and therefore the votes. One is therefore obliged to ask himself, for instance, what “pastorality” means according to the mind of the Second Vatican Council.
I do not follow the footsteps of C. Theobald in the French circle, of H. Sauer in the German one, of G. Ruggieri in the Italian, who make of pastorality itself a hermeneutical principle of Vatican II, reading the entire conciliar magisterium by its light.
Lionel: 'Pastorality' depends on doctrine.It depends on the faith.
 I see pastorality rather as the problem to be resolved, indicating that which I believe to be the only solution and that is, the classic distinction between the dogmatic and pastoral. The pastoral draws its reason for being from the dogma of faith and from the one, undivided Church...
Lionel: Yes.
 ...(in order to act, one must be), ever capable at the same time, to solicit new analyses and clarifications by reason of future challenges.
Lionel: Not with a new premise and conclusion.This was not part of the one, undividied Church.
 It cannot become the hermeneutical motive for the conciliar movement towards a new Church, towards a “softer doctrine” that adapts itself to various situations,...
Lionel: This is what happens when a dogma and doctrine is changed with an irrational premise and conclusion.
 ...for the simple fact that pastorality is itself mutability linked to time and to concrete situations, whereas the Faith, protected and announced by the Church, precedes time, enlightening and redeeming it. 
Lionel: However salvation theology has been changed by assuming the baptism of desire is subjectively known in the present times. How can it be  objectively known to us human beings? This is subjectivisim. It is similar to the subjectivism of Fr. Charles Curran in moral theology.It can also be seen in Pope Francis' exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
This seems to me to be precisely a very relevant and open question for theology: the capacity to re-write, in view of the times, that ancient and harmonious binomial that sees doctrine in view of the pastoral and the pastoral for the salvation of the peoples.
Lionel: With the objective error in salvation theology we have the pastoral action, new approaches..It is applied to new doctrine.
 After all, what is necessary is to place faith and charity, reason and love, in their correct and wise circular order.
A historical and theological interest to deepen the understanding of how things really went is growing, and this without a doubt, is praiseworthy. In recent years, very useful studies have been produced on the hermeneutical theme of Vatican II and above all, on a theme that comes before every possible theological investigation: to clarify the distinction of the conciliar magisterium according to the documental hierarchy. A dogmatic constitution is not a decree or a declaration. It has been specified various times that the pillars of the whole magisterium of Vatican II are the two dogmatic constitutions: Lumen gentium on the Church and Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation, following which, Sacrosanctum Conciliumon the liturgy and the pastoral Gaudium et Spes.
Lionel:They have texts which are conclusions based upon an irrational premise.
 These four constitutions, as one can see, are already different among themselves in regards to their doctrinal content. Gaudium et Spes cannot rise to a doctrine stricto sensu or in toto, as on the contrary, Lumen gentium. Rather, it presupposes some doctrinal principles: it is the word of the Church addressed to the world, with the aim of showing the way in which She understands her presence in the then contemporary panorama which has already changed today. This, as you mentioned, recalled the first note to the text of the pastoral constitution, not without letting the first difficulties transpire. It is already difficult to put together the two words that distinguish the document: “constitution” and “pastoral”. The Council is clearly adopting a new manner of teaching, which must necessarily be noted for a corresponding hermeneutic. If one then observes the two dogmatic constitutions, various levels of magisterium can be seen, even if one attests to this data: the general tenor of the teaching is solemn/extraordinary or supreme in respect to the subject who teaches (an ecumenical council) and authentic, ordinary in respect to the subject taught, deducing this from its re-proposition or initial proposition and from the way in which it is taught. In order to understand the Second Vatican Council, one must frequently make distinctions and not put “all our eggs in one basket.
Lionel:Vatican Council II has erred and the error is their in these documents. The error is objective and it would be sufficient for any one to reject Vatican Council II if they wanted to. Since this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit cannot teach error.
1.The Second Vatican Council II has erred when it accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text.
2.It has erred when in principle it accepted that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
3.It has erred when it assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases,known persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). So Lumen Gentium 14 says only those persons need to enter the Church for salvation, to avoid Hell, who know about the Jesus and the Church.In other words who are not in invincible ignorance.Here we have a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II based on an irrational premise.The Council Fathers erred.
They also rejected the dogma EENS which says all need to enter the Church. They have also contradicted Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. AG 7 does not say there are exceptions when it refers to all.
Another factor must also be considered in order to approach the documents in a correct manner: it often occurs that a declaration or a decree reprises or deepens the study of the themes taught in the constitutions. One can think, for example, of the ecumenical theme and therefore, of the relation with the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, with the other Christian communities or churches examined in Unitatis redintegratio with respect to Lumen Gentium. This tells us that also a dogmatic constitution is not a closed and definitive text; its teachings can be completed by another document of an inferior juridical nature and by a theme developed elsewhere. Remember also the example of an inverse case, the theme of permanent diaconate dealt with in Lumen gentium and taken up again with a new but also problematic emphasis in the decree on the missions Ad gentes (where it speaks of “men who carry out the functions of the deacon’s office”, n.16, “functions” which however do not exist outside the sacrament). What does this say to us on a hermeneutical level? Above all that we must be cautious in distinguishing between doctrines, the way to teach them and the nature of the document that teaches them, bearing in mind the aim of the Council that is almost always present: the pastorality of the Council.
There are also other themes that would deserve new attention from theology, that I try to evidence in my work. In studying Vatican II in its conciliar phases, one witnesses a rather singular fact. During the sessions of conciliar debates and above all, in the Doctrinal Commission, some much more recent doctrines in terms of theological study and magisterial development – for example, episcopal collegiality, permanent married deacons, sacramentality of the Church – were proposed with notable zeal by skilled theologians to the Fathers, and were later taught; whereas other doctrines, much more ancient in their dogmatic development, to which was often possible to add the attribute of “common” – we can think of limbo, or the theme of creation and the snare of evolutionism, or the members of the Church (how does one belong in a perfect or full way to the Church?) in relation to the connection between the invisible mystery or mystical Body of Christ and the visible and hierarchical society or the social and historical body – were instead, set aside because considered not yet mature and to be left to theological discussion.
Lionel: It was here where Cushingism replaced traditional Feeneyism as a theology. We can think of limbo and exclusive salvation in the Church.The Council chose Cushingism as an interpretative theology.
'Or the members of the Church (how does one belong in a perfect or full way to the Church?) in relation to the connection between the invisible mystery or mystical Body of Christ and the visible and hierarchical society...',here too Cushingism was chosen as the new theology.The text was written in a way that it could be interpreted with Cushingism.
The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney had still not been lifted during Vatican Council II. So it could have been assumed by all durng the Council, that the magisterium supported  the new theology, based on known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
-Lionel Andrades

JULY 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -2

No comments: