The interpretation of
Vatican Council II according to Cardinal Godfried Daneels and Roberto dei
Mattei is finished. This interpretation of Vatican Council II is as false as
Pope Benedict’s, who does not use the Rational Premise.
Pope Benedict permitted
the Latin Mass since he wanted Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX to come into
the Church and accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise. He
has always defended the interpretation of the Council with the False Premise
creating a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
The liberals are also
afraid of interpreting Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. They know
that pretending that they are on the moral high ground because of Vatican
Council II, is over. They can no more claim that the traditionalists are in
schism for not accepting Vatican Council II. Instead it is now the
conservatives who can say that the liberals are in schism for not affirming
Vatican Council II ( rational).If they affirm Vatican Council II with the
rational premise they could be accused of being extremists and if they do not
schismatics.
The bottom line is that
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II always refer to
hypothetical cases. How can invisible people be visible examples of salvation
outside the Church in 1965-2021? How can LG 8 etc be exceptions for the
Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation?
So we have two
interpretations of Vatican Council II1) with LG 8 invisible and 2) with LG 8
etc being visible.
Pope Francis and
Traditionis Custode choose the irrational option. So does Cardinal Daneels and
Roberto dei Mattei.
So the division – the break
with Tradition, does not come with the liturgy but with the use of the False or
Rational Premise. This is irrespective if you go for Holy Mass in Latin or
Greek or if it is the Ambrosian, Syro Malabar or Melkite rite. It is the
premise which decides if you are liberal or orthodox.
If Cardinal Daneels
chooses to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise then he could
be considered conservative. While Roberto dei Mattei with the False Premise
would still be rejecting extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions, the
Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions and the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions.
There would be exceptions for him since he would be using the divisive New
Theology which is created with the False Premise.
So there are two
important points here.1) We have to de-condition ourselves from the mistake of
the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which used the Fake Premise and projected invisible
cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being visible
exceptions for traditional EENS( with no exceptions) and 2) we have to stop
thinking that the division in the Church comes with the liturgy.
If there is a rational
interpretation of Vatican Council II at the Novus Ordo or Latin Mass, then the
catechesis and homilies can be exclusivist and traditional.
The hermeneutic of
rupture or continuity with Tradition comes with the Irrational or Rational
Premise in the interpretation of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc.-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment