I imagine that the reason that the opposition to the conciliar ideology initially primarily “spoke French” – to use your expression – was due to the fact that in those years France could boast of intellectuals of a certain depth, both laymen as well as clergy, for whom the very close connection between social and ecclesial events was evident. Let’s not forget that France was faced with bitter social conflicts in 1968 and a form of ultra-progressivism that was perhaps less widespread in Italy, above all outside the larger cities. In France there was a greater perception of the revolution that was underway in a nation of deep Catholic tradition that had already experienced the persecutions and effects of anti-clerical governments.
In England, where the minority Catholic presence had always had to confront Anglicanism, the evidence that the conciliar Church was embracing the liturgical and doctrinal positions of Protestantism led to both a firm and united response by the faithful as well as many non-Catholics, who considered the surrender of the Holy See to the secularizing mentality of modern society to be incomprehensible. The so-called “Agatha Christie Indult” revealed the dismay of many intellectuals over the decision to cancel the traditional liturgy, which was the element that distinguished Catholics from Anglicans. It seemed like a repudiation of centuries of heroic resistance of Catholics in the face of religious persecution. The healthy ecumenism of the pre-conciliar era had favored a constant stream of Anglicans returning to the womb of the Catholic Church, but in the Seventies, especially after the liturgical reform, this stream dried up, and “conversions” began moving instead towards the Eastern Churches. According to the heterodox conciliar theses, it was thought that even those who wished or desired with a sincere heart to re-enter the One Fold under the One Shepherd should instead be left in schism and heresy.
In Italy, the seat of the Papacy, which was politically led by the Christian Democratic Party, there was a much more marginal response to the conciliar revolution, perhaps due to the fact that Catholicism did not seem to be at risk of extinction.-Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano
Lionel: So what ?!
Vatican Council II is traditional, orthdox and Feeneyite when the false premise is not used. If Archbishop Vigano chooses to see LG 8 LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc as referring to only hypothetical cases then there are no objective exception s in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are not practical exceptions in the Council-text to the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors.
As I have said often before, so what if Congar, Rahner, Ratzinger and Murray where there at Vatican Council II ? Pope Paul VI could have interpreted hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical and there would be no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. O.K Bugnini did not do it but neither did Archbishop Lefebvre. -Lionel Andrades
In new interview, Abp. Viganò discusses Vatican II, decline of Marian devotion, and the Novus Ordo Mass
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/in-new-interview-abp.vigano-discusses-vatican-ii-decline-of-marian-devotion-and-the-novus-ordo-mass
BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Fake premise
The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically visible cases in 1949-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.They are examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
Fake conclusion
So they contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office(CDF) made an objective mistake.
BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Rational Premise
The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically invisible cases in 1949-2021
They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.They are not examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
Rational Conclusion
They do not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.They do not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.
__________
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Fake premise
Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 14(Baptism of Desire), Lumen Gentium 16 (Invincible ignorance) etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, made an objective error.
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Rational Premise
Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 14 and Lumen Gentium 16 in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-L.A
_____________________
Lionel Andrades,
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.One is rational and the other irrational, one has the false premise and the other is without it,
blog: Eucharist and Mission
_______________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment