Tuesday, May 8, 2018

So what is Louie waiting for , what prevents him from interpreting Vatican Council II rationally ?

In a previous blog post I wrote Everything hinges on visible baptism of desire : correct the premise and change the Council. 
Change the premise and change the Council's interpretation with one stroke.The changes Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Jesuits and others made in Vatican Council II were based on the Fr. Leonard Feeney case ; the use of the false premise.
We need one simple action to make the Council traditional again.One simple action.It is - correct the premise.
It can be compared to a dark room when the light is switched on.The darkness all goes at once. One simple action.Press the light switch.
It can be compared to watering the root of the tree. One simple action and the whole tree is nourished. We do not have to water the leaves and branches separately.
Similarly by changing the invisible cases are visible premise to simply invisible cases are just invisible - we water the whole tree of Vatican Council II, so to speak, all at once.We do not have to touch up Lumen Gentium or re-write Gaudium et Spes. 1
So when Unitatis Redintegratio 3 says,' It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.' it refers to a hypothetical case.
It refers to someone physically invisible on earth. It is speculative.
But for Louie Verrechio UR 3 refers to known people saved outside the Church. It refers to known Christians saved outside the Church. 
Well, because the almighty Council said that these heretical operations are such that “Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation!” (ibid.)- Fool me once, shame on you…  2
So for Louie and the present two popes UR 3 is a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors and so Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.The Council does not have the hermeneutic of continuity because the traditionalists and the liberals see UR 3 as a known person saved outside the Church and not a hypothetical case.
The two popes and the Left appreciate it. Louie rejects the conclusion. But both are using the same irrational premise.

So now we have a choice. We can use the irrational premise or discard it.We can assume LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible people or we can say that they are invisible cases in 2017.Either way the conclusion with reference to EENS is different(Ibid).
Louie and the pope have a choice . But they do not choose the rational option.They interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.
Pope Benedict also had a choice and he chose the irrational premise and this is  expressed in the new Code of Canon Law which Louie has cited.
So when your premise is : invisible cases of LG 16, LG 8 etc are not exceptions to EENS, since they are invisible in 2017, there is no rupture with EENS in Vatican Council II, we have a traditional Council.Vatican Council II is not a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
So with one action we have changed Vatican Council II as it is being interpreted by just about every body today.
One simple action(Ibid).
Louie writes :
The seeds were planted at the almighty Council:
The brethren divided from us [Editor’s note: the heretics] also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. (UR 3)
Yes the seeds were planted at the Council. They interpreted being saved in invincible ignorance among Christians, as referring to known people saved outside the Church.
They saw being saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood among Protestants, as referring to known people saved outside the Church.
So there was salvation outside the Church for them. No one contested this error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.
But today in 2018 Louie is free to interpret UR 3 as referring to only hypothetical cases.
It can be compared to a magnet. When we change the polarity of a magnet all the iron filings placed before it move.They change their position.Similarly by changing the premise, one simple action, all the irrationality in Vatican Council II is moved out.
Try it for yourself. Experiment. Picture LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to unknown persons , unknowable persons.Or picture them as being known people saved outside the church. What is your conclusion in both cases with reference to EENS?
When we choose a rational premise not only does Vatican Council II change but the Council is in harmony with other magisterial documents.(ibid)
No one prevents Louie from saying that UR 3 refers to an invisible and unknown Protestant in 2018.
Without the irrational premise the Holy Mass offered today, in Italian , Latin or Greek, has the same ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the 16th century.The Nicene Creed is simple and the same as the understanding over the centuries.Invisible for us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology or to Feeneyite EENS.They do not make Vatican Council II a rupture with the past.
One small change and all this good is achieved. One simple action and the Council returns to Tradition.(ibid)
So what is Louie waiting for, what prevents him from interpreting Vatican Council II rationally ? -Lionel Andrades

 MAY 7, 2018

Repost : Everything hinges on visible baptism of desire : correct the premise and change the Council  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/repost-everything-hinges-on-visible.html


Fool me once, shame on you…  https://akacatholic.com/fool-me-once-shame-on-you/

No comments: