Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar,Murray and Cushing in 1965 not
only changed the Church's teaching on their being exclusive salvation in the
Church by using a false premise, but they also mentioned 'particular churches',
in other words the Orthodox Christians and Protestants are canonically within
the Catholic Church.Now in the Letter which accompanying Traditionis Custode it is mentioned as if this is the 'true Church' and not a paralled Church with Tradition.
If they did not interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible
ignorance(I.I) as being explicit and objective cases in the present times ( the red
column) they could not also say that every one does not need to be a formal
member of the Catholic Church.
It was only by accepting the objective error in the Letter of
the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO), that Cushing could create Nostra Aetate. He maintained the
excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney, who would not say that there were objective cases of the BOD and I.I in our
reality. There were none. The BOD and I.I could only be speculative and hypothetical
cases.
But Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung and the others knew that this would
not work. This would not be enough. To get rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and
consider the Orthodox Christians as being within the Catholic Church, they had
to project what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit and
subjective as being objective. In this way a New Theology was created it said
outside the Catholic Church there now is salvation unlike in the past and there
is the traditional theology to support it. This was a falsehood.
Since the FSSP and SSPX and many Catholics have rejected Vatican
Council II in which LG 8,LG 16 etc are
interpreted with an irrational premise and so the traditionalists go back to the traditional
sources of the Church, which support the traditional ecclesiology of the
Church, the Left identifies the Latin Mass, with the past ecclesiology.But the
past ecclesiology is there today with us at even the Novus Ordo Mass if the
false premise is not used to interpret BOD and I.I and the Creeds, Catechisms
etc.
I do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise so the ecclesiology of the Church before and after the Council is the same. There is no development of doctrine for me since I am not using the New Theology.There is no new revelation in Vatican Council II since the new revelation depended upon the fake premise which I avoid.
I go for Mass in Italian. In my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, before 2003 I would go for the Latin Mass it was offered by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i.The Church was opposite to where I was living.The Latin Mass was prohibited in the parish when the Fransciscan seminary was closed by Pope Francis and restrictions were placed on the religious community.
But for me nothing changed with the Latin Mass not being available in the parish and also the churches nearby.Since I am clear that I must not use a fake premise to change Catholic doctrine as did Rahner, Ratzinger and the rest of them at Vatican Council and earlier during the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston, USA.So there is no theology to support a New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation and New Ecclesiology unless one depends upon the deception at Vatican Council II..-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 16, 2011
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment