from Rorate caeili
The myth of the Hermeneutic of Continuity
The following Rorate translation was first published by our Spanish-language partners "Adelante la Fe."
Interview of José María Permuy, conducted by Javier Navascués
Papolatry is a widespread phenomenon in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics take as infallible everything the Pope says, failing to realize that the successor of Peter is only infallible under very specific and limited conditions and when he speaks ex cathedra,which in practice occurs only rarely. Conservative groups, together with many members of the Church, cherish an especial veneration for the Second Vatican Council and its documents.
Lionel: Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is false and is supported by Pope Francis. Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is beyond the imagination of Rorate Caeili correspondents and readers as it was unknown to also Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Hildebrands, Robert dei Mattei....It is a concept beyond their imagination.Some like Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari died without discovering it.
In effect, they elevate what was merely a pastoral council to the level of infallible dogma.
Lionel: This is no more an issue with Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).The two persons involved with this interview are Cushingites. Their concepts are Cushingites.Adfero who posted this has his mind closed.Only prayers can help.
In accordance with Benedict XVI’s thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity, they would interpret the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition, without rupture or break, without the least error, approving of everything. This cannot be.
Lionel: It cannot be with Vatican Council II (Cushingite) but with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) has the hermeneutic of continuity.The usual conditioning of the traditionalists prevent them from seeing it.Others are too afraid to speak the truth.
José María Permuy, a professional in the field of education, a lecturer and author of many articles on the traditional teachings of the Church, explains on this occasion why it is not possible to speak of“hermeneutic of continuity” in its proper sense.
Lionel: For a Cushingite it is understandable.
Why cannot this concept be accepted?
Because it is a half-truth, well-intentioned as it may be. It is certain that there are conciliar texts that are susceptible to two or more interpretations. There, precisely, lies the problem. If these texts were clear, there would be no room for diverse interpretations. The fundamental problem, therefore, is not the subjective interpretations that are made, but the ambiguities and the objective contradictions made in some of the affirmations of the Second Vatican Council in comparison with the Magisterium of all time.
Lionel: He is referring to Vatican Council II(Cushingite).
It is true that over the years the Popes have tried to clarify doctrinal issues, such as the primacy of the Pope or the necessity of Christ and His one true Church for salvation.
Lionel: They were trying to do it with Cushingite reasoning. They were handicapped.
It is no less certain that on other occasions, the Popes, including Benedict XVI, have promoted, in theory or in practice, conciliar ideas contrary or alien to the Tradition of the Church, such as the separation of Church and State, ecumenical and interreligious prayer meetings, the recognition of the “martyrdom” of heretics and schismatics, the translation of the Mass into the vernacular and the progressive introduction and permission for Communion in the hand, extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, etc… Francis is doing nothing but taking these erroneous ideas to their logical conclusions.
Lionel. Both are Cushingites. They interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and so the conclusion is non traditional.The traditionalists have no clue as to what is happening.
If the Popes themselves have fallen into heterodox interpretations in several important areas, it is because the conciliar documents themselves have allowed it. It is evident that had they adhered to such encyclicals as Mortalium animos, Mediator Dei, Quas primas, Vehementer nos, and Immortale Dei, the heterodox interpretations would have been impossible.
Lionel: They interpret also these documents with Cushingism theology.
What did the Second Vatican Council mean for the Church?
Because of the Council, the existence of a false “church” became more apparent—a parasite upon the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. Fortunately the Church is one and indivisible. Doctrine does not change. The unity of its government, under the authority of the Vicar of Christ, does not change, even if at times, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, in imitation of the Apostle St. Paul, the faithful have the right and even the duty to confront the Holy Father and to correct him if he takes decisions that put the integrity of the doctrine of the Faith or the salvation of souls at risk.
Lionel: How can the traditionalists confront him with they also use the New Theology?
Up until the Second Vatican Council, heretics either left the Church or were expelled from Her. The heterodox were admonished and chastised. Today they dwell in the Church’s very bosom. They are cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians. They are not leaving. They do not wish to leave. They wish to remain within and work to enshrine their errors in theory, or at least in practice. To make things worse, the Popes scarcely intervene. Sometimes, they not only fail to oppose these new and heterodox tendencies, but they themselves are their followers, or even their authors.
Lionel: So are the Rorate Caeili correspondents from my Feeneyite perspective.
The gates of hell shall not prevail. This is a promise of our Divine Saviour. But it does not mean that, as Paul VI warned, the smoke screen of Satan has not infiltrated the Church and turned it down a path of self-destruction. Will Satan and his destructive minions bring down the Church? No. Could they inflict serious damage upon Her? Certainly. Such is our current situation.
Is there a distinction to be made between parts of the conciliar documents that are erroneous, those that are ambiguous, and those that are indifferent?
Lionel. Please make the distinction between Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Cushingite.Take a little time to study the difference.
In this regard, to be honest and unbiased, we must begin by recognizing that there are not only parts that are erroneous, ambiguous and indifferent; nearly the entirety of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council is fully orthodox, edifying, in conformity with the extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary universal Magisterium of the Church, and therefore with Catholic Tradition.
Lionel: Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is heretical.It is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for example. Pope Benedict confirmed it in March 2016
However, as is well known, to be a heretic it suffices to deny one single truth of the Faith, even if one were to be a passionate defender of all the rest.
Lionel: Rorate Caeili interprets Vatican Council II with heresy and rejects an orthodox version. The FSSP offers Mass with the false version of Vatican Council II and EENS...
Not every theological error is a heresy. Nonetheless it remains an error, and as such, dangerous and unacceptable. The Second Vatican Council contains affirmations that are indifferent, for instance sections that deal with methods of communication and other such things with no direct relation to faith and morals.
It contains ambiguous documents, such as Dignitatis humanae, which on the one hand claims to leave intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the duty of society towards Christ and the true religion, but on the other hand maintains, in opposition to the Traditional Magisterium, that the State must respect, as a right, the freedom to promote false religions in the public sphere.
There are also errors, for example when it is affirmed, without further explanation and in contradiction with what was established at the Ecumenical Council of Florence, that heretics and schismatics can be martyrs if they shed their blood for confessing Christ.
And let us not forget the deliberate omissions, such as the absence of an explicit moral condemnation of Communism.
Lionel: The above passages were written in ignorance of the two versions of Vatican Council II one with the hermeneutic of continuity and the other with a rupture.
This interview is not the time for an exhaustive enumeration of the ambiguities and errors of Vatican II. For a closer study of the theme, I recommend three works: Iota unum by Romano Amerio, Il Concilio Vaticano II. Un discorso da fareby Brunero Gherardini [translated into English as The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much-Needed Discussion] and theSi Si No No series on “The Errors of Vatican II.”
Lionel: Romano Amero di understand it was reported on the Catholicism.org website that the baptism of desire etc had to go.
This is at the heart of the issue. Invisible baptism of desire cannot be a visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. Invisible cases are not exceptions to Tradition. This is Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
So therefore, not everything taught in this Council is part of Tradition…
Absolutely not. In matters such as religious liberty, relations between the Church and the political community, and the role of false religions with heretical and schismatic groups with regard to the salvation of mankind, to take only a few examples, its teachings are novel and incompatible with Tradition.
Lionel: Cushingite reasoning.
Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to the errors of the Council and firm in defense of Tradition…
Archbishop Lefebvre certainly was, I do not know if he was the first, but certainly the most prominent shepherd of the Church who, from the very beginning until his death, perseveringly denounced the errors, contradictions, omissions and ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council.
Today, as we watch, stunned, while day after day Francis pushes the worst of the Second Vatican Council to its most extreme and nefarious consequences, the figure of Archbishop Lefebvre shines forth ever more brightly as a man of prophetic vision.
Lionel: More of the same.
Why do conservative groups blindly defend the Council?
It is not easy to find an explanation. In fact, there are many different motivations, and not all are caused by bad faith or bad will. In the case of some bishops, priests, and superiors of religious orders and congregations, it is quite possible that although they want to convince themselves that they are acting out of obedience, the fear of reprisals weighs on them: loss of their positions or even their livelihoods; the risk of an intervention by the Holy See into their communities…
Another motive is what many call papolatry. It is the belief that the Popes can never err when speaking of faith or morals. The First Vatican Council defined the infallibility of the Pope under certain conditions: [among others,] that he expressly wishes to define, as definitive, a truth regarding faith or morals.
This implies that, should these conditions not exist, the Popes are not necessarily aided by the Holy Ghost with the charism of infallibility; they can err, also in matters of faith and morals. If this were not so, the First Vatican Council would have declared that the Pope cannot err when he speaks of faith and morals, period, no further distinctions, nuances, clarifications or disquisitions needed.
What is more, the Popes, even without speaking or writing heresy, are not exempt from the possibility of sinning by favouring it, either by action or by omission, as demonstrated by the case of the anathematized Pope Honorius I.
Another reason that non-progressive Catholics defend the Second Vatican Council is that, like Benedict XVI, they believe the obscure and ambiguous passages in the Council texts can be reinterpreted in the light of Tradition.
By this they mean that whenever an obscure paragraph occurs, the light of traditional doctrine should be projected onto it and everything will become clear. They fail to recognize that the evil is that the paragraph, itself, should be obscure at all. Furthermore, not everyone has the knowledge of the traditional Magisterium of the Church to reinterpret these obscure passages correctly. The Second Vatican Council has become, de facto, almost the only magisterial text of reference for all Catholics. Where do we receive instruction about the teachings of Trent, or the Magisterium of the Popes prior to Vatican II?
For this reason, what is needed is not to project light onto obscure passages, but rather to change these passages so that in themselves, and for all those who read them, they are clear.
There are also those who take advantage of the fact that in the documents of Vatican II, there are obscure expressions or statements on some topics, side by side with others that are perfectly clear and in accordance with Tradition. They emphasize the latter, and gloss over the former. They do the same as the progressives do, but in the inverse.
Lionel : MORE OF THE SAME.
Javier Navascués has written for the Periodico de Aragón and Canal 44 of Zaragoza. He has also worked as an announcer and screenwriter for a number of Catholic media groups such as NSE, EWTN, Radio Maria, and others, most recently at Agnus Dei.
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake. Mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) along side the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was superfluous.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. This is inferred to be a visible case( mostly unknowingly) for the SSPX etc and so it is made relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They use Cushingism.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withCushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withFeeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It was Cushingite.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted withCushingism or Feeneyism.
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is a Cushingite interpretation.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis is Cushingism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvatioon.
Council of Trent : A Feeneyite does not separate the baptism of water from the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.This is the dogmatic teaching of the dogma EENS and the Council of Trent on the baptism of water.
The Council of Trent does not state that the baptism of deire is explicit, physically visible and known in personal cases.
Council of Trent : A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.
For a Cushingite the Council of Trent says the baptism of water is visible and known in personal cases.This is the false inference.The text of the Council of Trent does not state this. It does not say that those who have received salvation in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are known in personal cases.This is an error of the liberal theologians.