Thursday, August 11, 2016

Pope Benedict's new theology was a rupture with the Faith.If we avoid his new theology in the interpretation of magisterial documents there is a continuity with Tradition. There is then no doctrinal problem

image3
Comments from the blog 1Peter5 : Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed
 Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal




    • Avatar



      Some of us have argued, on the contrary, that communion means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem [was] merely doctrinal.
      Otherwise, many of our favorite canonist Cardinals (e.g. Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error. Let's not forget what our Lord said precisely about obedience to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors of the law after all.


      • Avatar





        One obeys those who sit in the seat not merely because they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
        What is said from the seat must actually bind one to an assent of faith because it is true. "Ecumenism," for example, is neither true nor false because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
        Our Lord was not counseling blind obedience to everything the Pharisees said from their seats of authority. Quite the contrary!
    • http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents
    • -are-non-doctrinal/
    • ___________________________________________


    Some of us have argued, on the contrary, that communion
     means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience
     to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and
    thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain
    nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem
     [was] merely doctrinal.
    Lionel: Pope Benedict's new theology was
     a rupture with the Faith.If we avoid his 
    new theology in the interpretation of 
    magisterial documents there is a 
    continuity with Tradition. There
     is then no doctrinal problem.
    _________________________________
    Otherwise, many of our favorite canonist Cardinals (e.g.
     Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error.
    Lionel. Cardinal Ottaviani was in 
    error since he accepted the new
     theology in the Fr. Leonard Feeney
     case.
    ________________________________

     Let's not forget what our Lord said precisely about obedience
     to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors
    of the law after all.
    Lionel: The contemporary 
    magisterium with the new 
    theology is supporting an innovation
     in doctrine. They have discarded 
    the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 
    salus in doctrine and praxis and 
    are interpreting Vatican Council 
    II assuming it is a rupture with 
    the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
     salus.The SSPX is doing the same.
    _________________________________

    One obeys those who sit in the seat not merely because
     they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which
     simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
    Lionel: Would it be nominalism
     to assume hypothetical cases 
    are explicit in the present times 
    simply the popes since Pius XII
     supported this error?
    _____________________________
    What is said from the seat must actually bind one
     to an assent of faith because it is true. 
    Lionel: Exactly but this is not
     so now.
    ______________________________

    "Ecumenism," for example, is neither true nor false
    because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
    Lionel: Yes but when UR 3 is
     assumed to refer to an explicit 
    case in the present times then
     it would mean there are known
     cases of Christians, who are 
    saved outside the Church,
     they are saved without 
    being formal members of 
    the Church. So there is
     no more an excumenism 
    of return.With the new
     theology based upon
     this irrationality, ecumenism
     in particular and the faith in
     general has been changed.
    _____________________________
    Our Lord was not counseling blind obedience
     to everything the Pharisees said from their seats
     of authority. Quite the contrary!
    Lionel: So we can question
     those who interpret Vatican
     Council II with an irrationality
     and then expect the SSPX 
    to do the same for canonical
     acceptance.We can also
     question Archbishop Lefebvre's
     mistake in assuming LG 16,
     UR 3 etc referred to explicit
     cases and so Vatican Council
     II was break with Tradition.
    -Lionel Andrades



    There needs to be an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican, simply saying hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to Tradition

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/there-needs-to-be-agreement-between.html


    If the Vatican regularises the SSPX and they could do so, it will not have cleared up the doctrinal issue.It will be also be assumed that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II with the doctrinal error, with heresy
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/if-vatican-regularises-sspx-and-they.html



    The next time you hear Bishop Fellay criticize Vatican Council II know it is for the liberal lobby he indirectly supports them : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake in principle and was not aware of it
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/the-next-time-you-hear-bishop-fellay.html

    No comments: