SSPX DISTRICT USA
Kasper: intentional ambiguities at Vatican II
Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano this past Thursday.[1]
Firstly, we need to appreciate his sincerity. Kasper’s statement is contra to the prevailing mantra from Pope Paul VI onwards (and the blind optimism of Cardinal Dolan of New York), and thus undermines that unrealistic vision of a Church in springtime:
For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis."
Then, speaking of the challenges facing the Church and the "true implementation of Vatican II", he states:
In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)
Lionel: However there is only one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, now, after every thing has been done and said.
The Council Fathers like Cardinal Cushing, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Hans Kung, Fr. Karl Rahner and others placed the ambiguous passages in Vatican Council II.
They did this by accepting the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were non hypothetical. They were objective and relevant exceptions to EENS. So the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are mentioned in Vatican Council II along with all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).So mentioning BOD,BOB and I.I brought in the ambiguity.But the BOD, BOB and I.I passages today are still hypothetical and theoretical. There cannot be a BOD cases in real life known to us. So the BOD passages do not contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENs. The ambiguous passages for Cardinal Kasper and the SSPX are really neutral -to-EENS passages.They are 'zero cases'.They are not ambiguous in the sense that they are not relevant to EENS. They are not exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return.
The Council Fathers like Cardinal Cushing, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Hans Kung, Fr. Karl Rahner and others placed the ambiguous passages in Vatican Council II.
They did this by accepting the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were non hypothetical. They were objective and relevant exceptions to EENS. So the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are mentioned in Vatican Council II along with all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).So mentioning BOD,BOB and I.I brought in the ambiguity.But the BOD, BOB and I.I passages today are still hypothetical and theoretical. There cannot be a BOD cases in real life known to us. So the BOD passages do not contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENs. The ambiguous passages for Cardinal Kasper and the SSPX are really neutral -to-EENS passages.They are 'zero cases'.They are not ambiguous in the sense that they are not relevant to EENS. They are not exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return.
Cardinal Kasper is presenting the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II and the SSPX, USA has accepted it hook, line and sinker.
__________________________________
Here Cardinal Kasper is saying that the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops.
Lionel: Yes since the progressivists interpret passages which refer to hypothetical cases only, as not being hypothetical. They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church. So they contradict EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.
However this is not the reading of the liberals only.Even the traditionalists like the SSPX and FSSP make the same error.
____________________________
Here the cardinal agrees that the conflict is inherent to the texts themselves produced by the Council and not due to some later wrong interpretations of it. Contra to the conservative mantra of "perfect documents—imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." In other words, there is an intimate and logical connection between the documents and their implementation.
Yet, he is affirming something even more troublesome about the good faith of the Council progressive party. He clearly indicates that these potential conflicts were part of an intentional program.[2] He does not simply say the texts will bear various interpretations, but that these ambiguous passages were "compromise formulas" brought forth to placate two opposing sides, in such a way that they can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, but just as easily can be twisted by the progressives to lend seeming support to their mischief.
Lionel: No. They are Cushingite passages. They are the passages which are the conclusion of interpreting BOD, BOB and I.I with the false premise. Similarly LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were interpreted mixing up what is invisible as being visible.
Now, whatever was the motive of the Council Fathers;irrespective, Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with EENS according to the Magisterium of the 16th century.It is as simple as that.The Council can be interpreted with LG 8 etc not being exceptions to the past understanding on the Church having the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.
Irrespective of the motives and persons present at the Council, Vatican Council in 2019 can be interpreted as being Feeneyite on EENS.There is no ambiguity, for the discerning reader, to suggest that BOD, BOB and I.I or LG 8 etc are exceptions to EENS.This is the hard truth.Here the rubber meets the road.This is the bottom line today.
Cardinal Kasper could know about it and in his heart there could be a fear. The game is up. The secret is out.We now know what causes the hermeneutic of rupture with the past and can avoid it. There can only be a hermeneutic of continuity with the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed and EENS according to the 12th and 13th century.
____________________________
He concludes in saying that, although the story of the past twenty Church councils has sometimes been confusing, he affirms that Vatican II "however, is a special case."
This affirmation needs to be placed in parallel with the letter Archbishop Lefebvre sent to Cardinal Ottaviani on December 20, 1966, just one year after the closing of the Council.
that, [almost universally], when the Council innovated, it shook the certitude of the truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as belonging definitively to the treasure of Tradition... Whether it be the transmission of the bishops’ jurisdiction, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last things, etc.: on all these fundamental points, the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous Conciliar documents on these truths henceforth allow doubts."
Lionel: Yes with Cushingism the dogma EENS was made obsolete. So the past ecclesiology and and ecumenism of return was also set aside. Upon EENS was based the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State. With there being known salvation outside the Church inter faith marriages were no more adultery. There was no more mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Church. So religious liberty was looked at in a different way.Baptism was necessary but there were alleged exceptions of the BOD,BOB and I.I. So Jesus was contradicted in John 3:5 etc.
But with Feeneyism hypothetical cases are not objective and BOD is hypothetical only.So there would be no rupture with Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this.
He assumed Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Holy Office 1949 was correct.So he did know about the mistake being carried on into Vatican Council II.In 1965 Cardinal Cushing had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this.
He assumed Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Holy Office 1949 was correct.So he did know about the mistake being carried on into Vatican Council II.In 1965 Cardinal Cushing had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Until today the SSPX , USA will not admit there was a mistake.
_________________________________
It is rather pleasant to hear an arch-enemy of Tradition take our side to stigmatize the undercurrent which produced the studied ambiguities and errors which are pregnant in the very texts of the Council.
Lionel: Naive.
In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas...
So what ? The Council can still be interpreted with the 'ambigous' passages not contradicting the orthodox passages which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So how can Cardinal Kasper refute exclusive salvation by citing Vatican Council II ? There are no passages in the Council which he can quote to contradict the past exclusive ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return. UR 3 for example refers to a hypothetical and theoretical case in 2019. It does not refer to someone personally known saved outside the Catholic Church.
In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas...
So what ? The Council can still be interpreted with the 'ambigous' passages not contradicting the orthodox passages which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So how can Cardinal Kasper refute exclusive salvation by citing Vatican Council II ? There are no passages in the Council which he can quote to contradict the past exclusive ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return. UR 3 for example refers to a hypothetical and theoretical case in 2019. It does not refer to someone personally known saved outside the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
