It is necessary for the SSPX not to use the same approach as the last failed talks during the pontificate of Pope Benedict.
The Vatican side cited Vatican Council II as a rupture ( development) with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors) and the SSPX team in ignorance agreed.
There can be a breakthrough in the talks if both sides agree on what is obvious.The solution lies with the interpretation of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).When the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I change, the interpretation of Vatican Council II also changes.The hermeneutic of continuity or rupture depends upon how hypothetical cases like BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 16 etc are seen.
When LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only at the talks, then the Council cannot be a rupture with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, an ecumenism of return, the past exclusivist ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.
But LG 8 etc are interpreted by both sides as referring to non hypothetical, objective non Catholics saved outside the Church. So for all of them at the talks, there are practical exceptions to EENS, the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus.Outside the Church there is known salvation and they wrongly cite Vatican Council II.
This is irrational and not Catholic.It is bad philosophy and theology. It is an innovation in the Church and an error overlooked by the Vatican and the SSPX.
The SSPX could hold a Press Conference outside the talks and correct this error in public.
Cardinal Ladaria is obliged to repeat the mistake for political reasons. He did so at the Placuet Deo Press Conference where Edward Pentin overlooked it.If Diane Montagna of LifeSites News was there, she too would have missed the obvious error.
Pope Benedict repeated the same error, which is heresy, in March 2016 (Avvenire) when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.Michael Voris, Remnant News, Tancred at blog The Eponymous Flower and many others did not note the deception.Pope Benedict could have said that EENS today is the same as it was for the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.Since references to hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II cannot be objective exceptions to EENS, we cannot see or meet someone saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), for example, outside the Church.Instead he chose to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture with the past.
Similarly Cardinal Luiz Ladaria could have responded to the question of the Associated Press reporter at the Placuet Deo Press Conference by affirming EENS. He could have said that the Church still holds its old understanding on having the exclusiveness and superiority in salvation.He could have clarified that Lumen Gentium 8 is not an exception to the past ecclesiology of the Church. Since we cannot meet or see anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) outside the Church. Nor do we know of any one saved outside the Church where the true Church allegedly subsists.
The SSPX bishops and priests were silent when Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria were in manifest public heresy, a mortal sin of faith. Bishop Bernard Fellay in one of his Letters to Friends and Benefactors makes the same error.So before the talks are held and concluded the SSPX could kindly clarify its doctrinal position for all of us on this point.
The SSPX General Chapter Statement on Doctrine (2012) was Feeneyite on EENS.It was rejected by Pope Benedict, Cardinals Muller and Ladaria and Archbishops Pozzo and Di Noia.
So the doctrinal talks could fail again.Since both sides interpret BOD, BOB and I.I with an irrational premise. The Vatican accepts the non traditional conclusion.The SSPX correctly rejects it,.They do not seem to know of an alternative rational interpretation.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment