Placuit Deo – The Catholic Responce…
Moving on…
Below is the reproduction of the Veri Catholici Twitter string on the subject and the full commentary on the Placuit Deo Letter of the CDF:
The CDF letter, “Placuit Deo” contains several grave errrors and heresies: In this Thread these will be explained. The document is at
The first grave error, which is implicitly heretical, is the phrase “Christian Salvation”, which implies there is salvation apart from Christ and makes the only Salvation, which is Christ, merely a species of salvation in general.
Lionel: Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j could defend himself. He could say that Archbishop Lefebvre and now the SSPX Bishops believe there is salvation outside the Church. So if there is salvation outside the Church then it is possible that Christians can be saved.
He also reads Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method as do the traditionalists.So he quoted Lumen Gentium 8 as opposing the old exclusive ecclesiology of the Church. All the traditionalists agree with him on this point and they criticize. This is laughable and true except that it is so serious.
With the for and neutral to EENS method of reading Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 8 does not contradict EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century.But this point is not noted by this traditionalist blogger VC.
________________________
Second, the English translation follows the usage of godless Atheists in denying the honorific capitalization to the Divine Nature, the Mediator etc., which Catholics are accustomed to
Lionel: Un -clear.
_____________________
Third, the letter falls into the error of Gnosticism/Heraclitus’ metaphysics when it says, “The teaching on salvation in Christ must always be deepened.” As if there is something insufficient or ineffective in the plain preaching of the Gospel contained in Scripture and Tradition
Lionel : You will have to admit Cardinal Ladaria could say that there is no unity on doctrine on salvation even among the traditionalists and conservatives. For the SSPX the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and so they imply that there are known people saved outside the Church. For the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Centers there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire and there are no exceptions to EENS. For both groups LG 14( case of the catechumen) and LG 16( invincible ignorance) are exceptions to Feeneyite and so they reject Vatican Council II. So all of them like the two popes interpret hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical, invisible people being non invisible. Cardinal Ladaria is doing the same. This blogger VC is unaware of this error.
_____________________
Fourth, the Letter falls into gender confusion when it says, “Holding fast to the gaze of the Lord Jesus, the Church turns toward all persons with a maternal love” Because the Church is feminine and Christ is masculine and that colors their vision.
Lionel: This is an opinion. It is not a dogmatic or doctrinal issue.No clear statement has been made here.
______________
Fifth, the Letter establishes a new deposit of the faith (“the greater tradition of the faith and with particular reference to the teachings of Pope Francis”) which is both objectively and ontologically different from that of Scripture and Sacred Tradition
Lionel: But Pope Francis is interpreting Vatican Council II with the same for and against EENS approach as the traditionalists. Then he concludes that there is no more past ecclesiology of the Church since there are exceptions. The traditionalists also agree that there are exceptions. So Cardinal Ladaria has not made the change out of thin air. There is a particular theological basis for the change.It is commonly used also by traditionalists and the blogger (VC) too.
___________________________
These 5 points show that the Letter is formally Gnostic, while claiming to denounce “Gnosticism”. This is a very deceptive and dangerous document. We warn all the Faithful to reject it!...
Lionel: The basis of the Gnosticism seems Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise which is also the general way the traditionalists including the blogger VC interprets Vatican Council II.
I use the for and neutral to EENS approach and the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes. It becomes traditional.This is unknown to VC.So he does not correct this error of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the two popes.
_____________________
Sixteenth, in V, n. 12, the Letter fails to correctly identify the Catholic Church and scrupulously omits the word “Catholic” and thus gives support to the error that there is good hope for salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Lionel: This is the position of the SSPX. See their website on Feeneyism. There is hope for salvation outside the Church with BOD,BOB and I.I for them.
This was the mistake of Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre.
-Lionel Andrades
Continued https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/placuit-deo-the-catholic-responce/#comments
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment