From Louie Verrecchio's blog.
Tuco’s apologetic reaches ts climax as he asks rhetorically:
Is this change possible and acceptable? Can Francis accept what was taught by St. John Paul II and yet open a door that was closed?
He answers:
Yes, because an evolution in the Church’s understanding of her own doctrine and its disciplinary consequences is possible.
By way of historical examples, you’ll never guess what he cites… Vatican II!
Specifically, he points to the Church’s condemnations of religious liberty and the Council’s subsequent about face, as well as the “similar evolution [that] occurred on the issue of the possibility of salvation outside of the Catholic Church” (presumably referring, at least in part, to the Council’s claim that the heretical communities are “means of salvation” in UR 3).
On this note, Tuco is spot on.
If indeed the Church can alter her doctrine is such way as to affirm that which she has always condemned (as the conciliar text suggests), one might well imagine that anythingis possible – even a rejection of the bi-millennial practice of the Church that is based on the very words of Christ.
If we take just one thing away from Fernandez’s 6,000+ word treatise, let it be this:
There is no divorcing the current crisis in the Church, evidenced so substantially by the heresies put forth in Amoris Laetitia, from the apostasy that entered the Church at Vatican Council II; nor can one promote the message of Fatima without paying heed to Our Lady’s warning concerning the same.
https://akacatholic.com/archbishop-tucho-fernandez-on-amoris-laetitia/
This is not true.
What Archbishop Fernandes and Louie Verrecchio say here is false.It is the result of a false inference. Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the theology of Cushingism or Feeneyism.
What Archbishop Fernandes and Louie Verrecchio say here is false.It is the result of a false inference. Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the theology of Cushingism or Feeneyism.
With Feeneyism there is no salvation outside the Church mentioned in Vatican Council II. Also UR 3 refers to a hypothetical case. So it is not an example of salvation outside the Church.
Fernandes and Verrecchio have interpreted UR 3 and other passages with Cushingism i.e hypothetical cases are assumed to be concrete and known in the present times. They are assumed to be known people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church -when there are no such cases.
So the fault lies in the inference of Fernandes and Verrecchio and not Vatican Council II.
It is important for the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to note this mistake. It can have an important bearing on the SSPX accepting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and asking for full canonical status.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment