Archbishop Carlo Vigano said that Vatican Council should be abolished, set aside. Jeff Mirus nevertheless accepts Vatican Council II with its non-traditional conclusion.It is a break with the de fide teachings of the Church.But he praises Archbishop Vigano for accepting, at least, the validity of the Council.
How can a heretical and schismatic interpretation of the Council be valid for Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler?
Archbishop Vigano rejected the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council with a false premise - only.
The Council can be valid if it is interpreted with the rational premise and therefore the conclusion is traditional.This will be new for most people.
It is not new for me. So I ask :how can a Council that has an objective error and is heretical and schismatic be Magisterial and acceptable for Lawler and Mirus? What validity is Mirus talking about?
The Holy Spirit cannot confuse what is subjective and objective and create 'a new revelation' in the Catholic Church. This is human error. It is political.
We can go back to Tradition by re-interpreting the Second Vatican Council, without confusing the implicit with the explicit, the invisible with the visible. Then there is no break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) without exceptions, the Athanasius Creed ( with no known exceptions, for the traditional teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, is no longer obsolete. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 14, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic. This point has not been touched by Archbishop Vigano, Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler.
... Archbishop Viganò accepts the validity of the Second Vatican Council. Such clarity dramatically reduces the need for me to explain the extent to which I agree or disagree with him on other aspects of the case, because every Catholic: (a) Must accept the validity of an ecumenical council, including everything it teaches explicitly on faith or morals; but (b) Can still have his or her own opinion about the wisdom of particular pastoral initiatives and about the results of the efforts to implement them (which, in any case, are well beyond the ability of a council to control).-Jeff Mirus
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/archbishop-vigans-comments-on-vatican-ii/
Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted the validity of Vatican Council II but considered it a heretical Council. I agree, that if the Council is interpreted with the false premise it will be heretical, schismatic and non traditional. But if the false premise is avoided then the Council supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and Vatican Council II is dogmatic. This point has not been touched by Archbishop Vigano, Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler. I have asked for clarifications but none are coming forward.
Understandably, they have not covered this points, since Pope Paul VI and the popes who followd, have interpreted the Council as a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church. So at one time, the Magisterium has to be wrong.The popes today are explicitly contradicting the popes of the past, on a faith issue - exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The issue is not pastoral. The present popes are using the New Theology, based upon a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents. The Magisterium over the centuries avoided this false premise. There was no New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger,over the centuries.-Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Viganò’s comments on Vatican II
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/archbishop-vigans-comments-on-vatican-ii/
_________________________
JUNE 14, 2021
Bishop Robert Barron knows that there can be two interpretations of Vatcan Council II and both the interpretations cannot be Magisterial at the same time. He knows that the interpretation of the Council by the popes and Massimo Faggioli are irrational and the rupture with Tradition is artificial.But he and Faggioli do not want to mention it in their articles and talks
In recent months, some bishops and clerics have tried to advance a theologically defensible conservative interpretation of Vatican II, something to counter the extremist views of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and a group of like-minded quasi-schismatics, who in addition to rejecting the “Bergolian” magisterium have taken a position that’s hard to distinguish from pure and simple rejection of the council’s teachings. Bishop Robert Barron, for example, has spoken of attacks on Vatican II as a “disturbing trend,” and Thomas Weinandy, former executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the USCCB, has chastised Viganò for challenging the council’s authenticity.- Massimo Faggioli, The Remains of Vatican II,Commonweal
Massimo Faggioli is still hiding the truth. There can be two interpretations of the Council , one with a rational premise and the other without it and the conclusion of the Council will be different.I have mentioned this before to him and he has not contradicted me.But he does not want to discuss it.Similarly Bishop Robert Barron knows that there can be two interpretations of Vatcan Council II and both the interpretations cannot be Magisterial at the same time. He knows that the interpretation of the Council by the popes and Massimo Faggioli are irrational and the rupture with Tradition is artificial.But he and Faggioli do not want to mention it in their articles and talks . -Lionel Andrades
The Remains of Vatican II
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/remains-vatican-ii
___________________________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment