Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Balthasar, Ratzinger and Wojtyla interpret the Cushingite passages with a false premise. So there is a rupture with Tradition

 

 
1984: Hans Urs von Balthasar nel suo studio (a Basilea) con Giovanni Paolo II e il cardinale Ratzinger, che si congratulano con lui per aver ricevuto il Premio Paolo VI




The Council is traditional notwithstanding who were there. 
Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with Tradition even though Balthasar, Ratzinger and Wojtyla were there in 1965.
There are the conservative passages in Vatican Council II which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and there are the controversial passages which when interpreted rationally do  not contradict the conservative passages.
The conservative passages I refer to, as Feeneyite passages.
The  controversial passages I call Cushingite passages.
Balthasar, Ratzinger and Wojtyla interpret the Cushingite passages with a false premise. So there is a rupture with Tradition. 
I interpret the Cushingite passages without the false premise. So they do not contradict the Feeneyite passages for me. They do not contradict EENS.
The Feeneyite and Cushingite passages in  Vatican Council II are a continuity with Tradition. There is no hermeneutic of rupture for me. Since I have identified the source of the problem and know how to avoid it. -Lionel Andrades



IL VERO VOLTO DI VON BALTHASAR (3):  I TRE ARTICOLI DI “SI SI NO NO” (Parte Terza-30/9/2010)


No comments: