Father Alessandro Minutella is an Italian priest who on a video on Gloria TV has criticised the traditionalists for not accepting the new ecumenism which he said is based on Vatican Council II.He also criticised them for rejecting Vatican Council II.He was accompanied on the video by Giuseppe Fallaci, who I assume is a layman.
Giuseppe Fallaci quoted Vatican Council II ( UR) affirming an ecumenism of return.
So I mentioned in the comments section that Vatican Council II(UR ), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Giuseppe Fallaci and myself affirm an ecumenism of return.So does the Society of St. Pius X and the other traditionalists,but not Fr.Minutella.He would not say that the Lutherans need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
So Vatican Council II supports the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return.
Since it was confirmed by Giuseppe Fallaci that the Lefbrivists are in agreement with Vatican Council II on an ecumenism of returm, I asked where is the counter theology which negates an ecumenism of return in Vatican Council? Where does Vatican Council II say otherwise?
After over 20 comments there was no answer from either them.Since there is no precise theology in Vatican Council II to reject the ecumenism of return.
The key to understanding this is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I placed the text of the dogma, as a comment before them, as it was defined by the three Church Councils.
The ecumenism of return is based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So if they have a theology which rejects EENS then it is possible to reject an ecumenism of return.
So how do they reject the dogma EENS, what is the ruse?
They do it by assuming there are known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water.They have to begin with this premise. Known cases of people who are saved in Heaven without the baptism of water and who are not invisible for them!
Invisible cases for us are visible for them.
Imaginary cases are not imaginary for them.
Hypothetical cases are defacto known on earth.
Then they infer, that these people in Heaven who are visible on earth,are objective exceptions, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They call this nonsense ' a development' of the dogma.The present magisterium supports them.This is deception.
Without this irrational premise and non traditional conclusion there is no theology in Vatican Council II which contradicts an ecumenism of return.
Similarly without this irrational premise there is no change in the old ecclesiology which taught that all Jews, Muslims etc need to convert into the Catholic Church as members, to avoid the fires of Hell.
When Fr.Alessandro Minutella and other liberal priests say that there is a new ecumenism, they must be asked to cite the text. When they quote UR 3 ( being saved in imperfect communion with the Church),for example, it should be pointed out that this is a reference to a hypothetical case. We do not know anyone personally in 2016 or the past saved as such. So it is not an exception to the old ecclesiology and an ecumenism of returm.
The SSPX should point out that Vatican Council II, like the SSPX, supports an ecumenism of return and that the theological position of the Vatican Curia(CDF/Ecclesia Dei) is irrational and non traditional.
Similarly they should point out to the CDF/Ecclesia Dei that Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) supports the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and all non Christians in the present times, with no known exception, need to enter the Church as members to avoid the fires of Hell.There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.-Lionel Andrades
November 10, 2016
November 10, 2016