Thursday, August 24, 2017

After so many reports on the Internet Phil Lawler still does not understand?

Let’s stop pretending: something DID go wrong after Vatican II

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Aug 23, 2017

Both Sammons and Mosebach see three standard interpretations of Vatican II:
  • The “liberal” or “progressive” interpretation sees the Council as a decisive break with Catholic tradition, and welcomes it. Citing the “spirit of Vatican II,” proponents of this interpretation have implemented radical changes in the Church, and push for more.
Lionel: They interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
  • The “official” interpretation sees Vatican II as a great success, and denies that any serious problems arose in the Council’s aftermath. There was some understandable friction as changes were implemented, the partisans of this theory will concede. But ultimately the changes are proving successful and all is well.
Lionel: They interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
  • The “conservative” or “orthodox” interpretation cherishes the documents of Vatican II, but believes the implementation of the Council was generally hijacked by the “progressive” party within the Church. If only we would adhere to the true teachings of the Council, this party says, the Church would thrive once again.
Lionel: They interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=1236




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.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation 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.



I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and my conclusion is different since my premise is different.The Council is traditional since the ecclesiology of the Church has not changed.
This was no known at the time of Vatican Council II and is possibly known by popes and cardinals but they are keeping quiet for political and personal reasons.
On Rorate Caeili yesterday Archbishop Fernandes in an article states said that there is now salvation outside the Church and the past it was not like this. The salvation outside the Church he refers to is the result of Cushingism.
Similarly before the first Synod on the Family, Cardinal Walter Kasper in an interview said that if the Church could change its ecclesiology then why cannot the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married. So he knew that ecclesiology has been changed and there is now salvation outside the Church.
Perhaps they also know about Cushingism and are intentionally keeping quiet.
Without Cushingism Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past and the SSPX could use it to claim canonical status.But them Kasper and Fernandes would be dismayed. They would not want to accept Vatican Councl II (Feeneyite).

After so many reports on the Internet Phil Phil Lawler still does not understand?


-Lionel Andrades


http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=1236