The Second Vatican Council and the Message of Fatima
Rorate Caeli, Corrispondenza Romana and other Catholic news-outlets, carried a valuable intervention by Monsignor Athanasius Schneider on the “Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and its relationship with the current crisis in the Church”.
Lionel: Mons. Athanasius Schneider interprets the Council with a false premise 1 and so his conclusion is non traditional and heretical. If he avoided the premise the Council would not contradict other magisterial documents.Now it does. 2 So his interpretation of the Council is schismatic.3 It is that of the popes from Paul VI to Francis. It is the official schism of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith whose Prefect is Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj.
_________________________
According to the auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Vatican II was a pastoral Council and its texts should be read and judged in the light of the perennial teaching of the Church. In fact “From an objective point of view, the statements of the Magisterium (Popes and councils) of definitive character, have more value and more weight compared with the statements of pastoral character, which have naturally a changeable and temporary quality depending on historical circumstances or responding to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as it is the case with the major part of the statements of Vatican II.”
Lionel : But when Mons. Schneider interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise he contradicts dogmatic teachings like no salvation outside the Church.
__________________________
Monsignor Schneider’s article was followed on July 31st by a balanced comment from Don Angel Citati of the FSSPX (http://www.sanpiox.it/attualita/1991-suaviter-in-modo-fortiter-in-re), according to which the German Bishop’s position recalls very closely what was repeated constantly by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre: “To say that we evaluate the Council’s documents “in the light of Tradition”, means, evidently, three indissoluble things: that we accept those that are in keeping with Tradition; that we interpret those that are ambiguous according to Tradition; that we reject those that are contrary to Tradition” ( (Mons. M. Lefebvre, Vi trasmetto quello che ho ricevuto.
Lionel : Mons.Marcel Lefebvre interpreted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise. He assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were known exceptions to 16th century EENS.
He then interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise.He assumed unknown cases in the present times, referenced in LG 8, LG 16, GS 22, NA 2 etc, were personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So Vatican Council II with this false premise emerged with the hermeneutic of rupture.Mons. Lefebvre then blamed the Council not knowing the precise cause of the rupture. This was non traditional.
_________________________
Tradizione perenne e futuro della Chiesa, [I transmit what I have received. Perennial Tradition and the future of the Church] by Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro, Sugarco Edizioni, Milano 2010, p. 91). Having been published on the official site of the Italian District, Don Citati’s article helps us understand what might be the base of an agreement to regularize the canonical situation of the Fraternity of Pius X.
Lionel: When the SSPX and the CDF interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, this could be the start of reconciliation on doctrine and theology.4
Presently both groups say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) when they really should be saying that they are not exceptions.
They have conditioned Catholics to see LG 8 etc as exceptions.
They have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as objective people, known and visible. But there are no such cases.
This is the mistake made by the CDF and the SSPX.
The conditioning has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). The liberal theologians assumed the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) were exceptions to EENS when they really should have said that they are not exceptions to EENS.
People have been conditioned to see BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions.
They have been conditioned to see BOD,BOB and I.I as objective people, known and visible, but there are no such cases.This is a mistake both groups could correct. The interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.-Lionel Andrades
__________________________
It must be added that, on the theological level, all of the distinctions can and have to be made to interpret the texts of Vatican II, which was a legitimate Council: the twenty-first in the Catholic Church. Its documents from time to time may be defined pastoral or dogmatic, provisional or definitive, in keeping or not in keeping with Tradition.
Monsignor Brunero Gheradini, in his recent works offers us an example of how a theological judgment may be articulated, if it wants to be precise (Il Concilio Vaticano II un discorso da fare, Casa Mariana, Frigento 2009 e Id., Un Concilio mancato, Lindau, Torino 2011). Each text, for a theologian, has a different quality and a different degree of authority and cogency. Hence the debate is open.
On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins, its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church, initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent. If the theological judgment may be vague and comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal. The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church.
Since this year is the centenary of the Apparitions of Fatima, let us consider this point only. When Vatican II opened in October 1962, Catholics from all over the world were waiting for the disclosing of the Third Secret and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary. John Haffert’s Blue Army led a mass campaign for years in this regard.
What better occasion for John XXIII ( died 3rd June 1963), Paul VI and with circa 3000 bishops gathered around them, in the very heart of Christendom, to meet Our Lady’s requests in a solemn and unanimous way? On February 3rd 1964, Monsignor Geraldo de Proença Sigaud, personally delivered to Paul VI, a petition signed by 510 prelates from 78 countries, which implored the Pontiff, in union with all the bishops, to consecrate the world and in an explicit manner, Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Pope and most of the Council Fathers ignored the appeal.
If the Consecration request had been done, great graces would have poured down on humanity. A movement of a return to the natural and Christian law would have begun. Communism would have fallen many years earlier, in an non-fictitious way, but authentic and real. Russia would have converted and the world would have experienced an age of peace and order. Our Lady had promised this.
The failed consecration allowed Russia to continue spreading its errors throughout the world and these errors conquered the highest ranks of the Church, inviting a terrible chastisement for all of humanity. Paul VI and the majority of the Council Fathers assumed a historical responsibility for which today we gauge the consequences.
1
Their false premise is:-
1. Invisible people are visible.
2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.
3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.
4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.
5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.
6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).
7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking who are saved outside the Church.
8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.
9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.
10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.
2
So with the false premise there are objective exceptions to EENS, Athanasius Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed etc:-
So with the false premise there are objective exceptions to EENS, Athanasius Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed etc:-
1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.
2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.
3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.
7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.
3
______________________________
Posts
