Sunday, July 10, 2016

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


3. Question: As is known, since its indiction, Vatican II was willed as pastoral (therefore, neither dogmatic nor disciplinary). 
Lionel: It has replaced the dogma EENS with a new theology. So it has created new doctrines on salvation and has replaced the old salvation theology.
A method and a praxis are manifested in order to precede and dispose the documents themselves. Thus a method is established and the content to be identified. Or analogously, the praxeological attitude is the premise, and the teaching is to be carried out as a consequence.
Lionel: The praxis is based on a false premise and conclusion.So Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 Precisely for this reason, the primate of pastorality emerges (in the intentions, formulation, language). In this sense, pastorality itself undeniably opens a problem rather than contain a solution. Studying Vatican II in your latest book, you make use of the category of “pastoral epiphany”. What reflections do you propose in this regard?
Answer: As I said before, it is my opinion that pastorality is the problem to be resolved in the Council.
Lionel: I think the primary problem is doctrine.This is reflected in praxis.
 Not in the sense that it is a problem in itself, but rather, because we do not have a definition of pastorality according to the mind of the Council. One simply retakes its classical meaning and definition in theology, or it is read according to the minds of some influential conciliar theologians, ending up with assuming more than one role or often going beyond its ambit. In the name of pastorality, discussions were cut short, by it, the agenda of the Council’s extraordinary magisterium was often planned and doctrine proposed, even if, like I said, their theological age was extremely young, and should rather have been left to further debate notwithstanding its long course.
Lionel: They were proposing and implementing magisterial heresy. This is unprecedented for a  Church Council.
 There is also another surprising factor: pastorality is also often inflected as an ecumenical effort of the Council, but this almost always means a one-way ecumenism with Protestants. And what about the Orthodox of the East? Some Fathers complained about this, seeing in this pastoral choice more a wound to unity than a new encouragement. For example, why was there an extremely long disquisition on the Traditio constitutiva of the Church, which had lasted over years, with the aim of toning it down, when it was the central and vital theme of Orthodoxy (above all in the liturgical ambit)?
Furthermore, I consider that the key problem is this: one cannot make of the object of study, that is, of understanding the new significance of the conciliar pastorality, the same hermeneutical method with which one approaches the problem. I reiterate: the problem cannot become the method as occurs in many hermeneutics. I would like to give a concrete example in order to show the different way in which the Council Fathers, and even before them, the theologians, debated in the name of pastorality, which was to be indicated by John XXIII as the new position of the entire magisterial structure. For this purpose, I present the definition of the word “pastoral” given by a conciliar Father and a theological expert of the Council’s Doctrinal Commission.
The General Master of the Dominicans, one of the Conciliar Fathers, Fr. A. Fernandez presents this definition of “pastoral” in one of his oral interventions during the Conciliar session as thus:
“1. The word “pastoral” is an adjective. It cannot be understood nor explained if not with regard to the substantive. The substantive admits a double case, and one must not mistake one for the other; a) either means the substantive that is the pasture or food; b) or otherwise the substantive that is the method of administering food and pasture. 2. Therefore, the pastoral munus of the Council refers principally to the substantive that is the food or the pasture. In fact, the Council defends the truth, it proposes the truth.
Lionel: The substantive is false.It is a new doctrine, an innovation in the Church which has come from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office mistake.
 The truth is clear, perspicuous, it is what one would expect of it.
Lionel: Here falsehood and deception is proposed as the truth.The deception is still promoted by the contemporary magisterium.
 The pastoral munus of each one of us refers principally to the substantive that is the method. The conciliar doctrine belongs to the pastors, wholesome food to administer to all, attentive to the conditions of places, times and people.
Lionel: New doctrine on salvation is not wholesome food.

 A simple way to the simple, a learned manner to the learned. […] We must not seek a pastoral nature that is obtained to the detriment of the truth. Wherefore, if out of two formulas, one more pastoral but less clear and exact, and another less pastoral but clearer and more exact, without a doubt, the second is to be preferred in council. In pastoral praxis the first is chosen; […]” (in Acta Synodalia [=AS] I/3, p.237).
Lionel: The faith was changed in 1949 Boston. The change was accepted in Vatican Council II. We can though still interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of the irrational Cushingism. The change is not something permanent. In this was we go back to the old ecclesiology and express it pastorally, as it was done in the past, before the innovation came into the Catholic Church.
Against this idea of pastorality in line with the constant vision of theology and magisterium, was the more theologically personal interpretation of E. Schillebeeckx, which was no less influential as can be seen from the discussions in Doctrinal Commission. He writes:
“The pastoral council becomes doctrinal, precisely on account of its pastoral character. “Pastoral” calls for doctrinal deepening” (The Council notes of Edward Schillebeeckx 1962-1963, Peters, Leuven 2011, p. 37). Here the Council’s pastorality clearly, rather than being food with which to nourish the faithful with the truth, becomes a “strategy” which makes the same doctrine blossom. Of course, not all the theologians shared in this vision, but the more influential and renowned did.
Lionel: The liberal theologians shared 'in this vision'. I assume so did the Masons.
This is why it is not easy to identify straight away and with absolute certainty what pastorality means in Vatican II. For this reason I chose the word “epiphania” (manifestation, apparition) to objectify where, from my point of view, this easy composition of doctrine and pastoral is manifested – that doctrine gradually formed for a pastoral motive, not for the presentation of a doctrine as such, but for a presentation to be made in a certain way, bearing in mind certain external requests, among which in a prevailing manner, the ecumenical afflatus. 
Lionel: Fr.Lanzetta is still searching in the dark.

Following the distinction of Fr Fernandez, the Council already carries out the work of the pastor, that work of “translation” which would then have been assigned to bishops and priests with all-pastoral prudence and solicitude. I speak of “pastoral epiphanies” therefore, because I try to show precisely how the “principally pastoral aim” of the Council, as one deduces more than once from the official replies either from the Secretary of the Council or from the Council’s Doctrinal Commission (cf. AS II/6, 205; AS III/8, p.10), presides in a certain way over the magisterial development of Vatican II and therefore limits, besides the teaching itself, also the way of presenting a doctrine, doing it in such a way that Vatican II normally consolidates itself on the ordinary authentic magisterium. 
Lionel: Magisterial development of Vatican Council II.' 
'Vatican II normally consolidates itself on the ordinary authentic magisterium'.
He refers to Cushingism.Cushingism is the authentic magisterium of the Church for Fr. Lanzetta.

Vatican II was free to do so, but councils were normally convoked not to begin teaching doctrines, but to settle errors, to define truths of the Faith, or to teach them in a definitive and hence unreformable way.
Lionel: It seems as if Vatican Council II was called to implement the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and to culminate the centuries- old effort by the Masons, to eliminate the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is a foundational dogma for other Church teachings including the non separation of Church and State.
Cardinal Ratzinger continued the same work in  the Catechism of the Catholic Church.CCC 846  refers to the dogma as an 'aphorism'.While the theology approved for the Catechism, by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn, is also based on Cushingism.It is the new salvation theology created with philosophical subjectivisim. 

 Here, for example, lies the difference between Vatican I and Vatican II. It is necessary to realise this difference, bearing in mind that it reveals itself precisely in this new fusion of pastorality and doctrinality. With my interpretation however, I intend to protect Vatican II from an excessive enthusiasm, which could end up generating a new re-interpretation precisely due to the “pastoral epiphanies”, finally concluding that for the first time, we truly find ourselves before a pastoral council! In fact, whilst I examine these epiphanies with the aim of applying a realistic hermeneutic, I keep to the traditional distinction between pastoral and dogmatic, seeing them as one being the reason of the other, but subordinating the praxis to faith and dogma.
Lionel: Yes praxis is subordinated to faith and dogma but in this case both faith and dogma have been changed.This is not noticed by Fr. Serafino Lanzetta.
I carry out an examination of the Council’s epiphanic pastorality fundamentally in three areas of the conciliar doctrines: 1) in the intentions and formation of the doctrine regarding the relationship Scripture-Tradition in Dei Verbum; 2) in the intentions and formation of the doctrine on the Church in Lumen gentium;
Lionel: This is done with irrational Cushing theology.
-Lionel Andrades

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

No comments: