In 2015 leftist politicians asked the New York Times not to allow Ross Douthet to write on Catholic theology since it differed from their official one approved by the Jewish Left for the Catholic Church.1 Among them is Massimo Faggioli.He considers the old traditional theology and ecclesiology of the Catholic Church as being 'criminal' and he will bring out the 'hate card' he keeps in his pocket and show it to you. This is what happened in his criticism of Ross Douthet who wrote on Pope Francis' Plot to change Catholicism 2.
Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam,observes See...here's the problem. This line of reasoning suggests that some theological views once were Catholic, but are no longer so. That's blatantly erroneous. Obviously, if a theological view was ever "Catholic", then it remains so today and forever. This is not a complex idea...its like, basic ecclesiology. "What is believed everywhere, always, by all," to quote the famous formula of St. Vincent of Lerins.
Faggioli means that the old theological views are not Catholic anymore because of Vatican Council II (Cushingite).This is Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise to produce a non traditional conclusion.This is common place for the School of Bologna which reportedly has influenced Faggioli.This is also the thinking of the popes since Paul VI.
POPE BENEDICT AGREES WITH FAGGIOLI
This was the message of Pope Benedict last year when he said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. There was 'a development' with Vatican Council II for him. This is the new theology of Pope Benedict and Massimo Faggioli.
The leftists are saying that they now have the sole narrative on theology after Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and any one who does not agree with them ' does not know theology'.
Massimo Faggioli tells Ross Douthat that the latter does not know theology and Fr.Norbert Hoffman sdb, Secretary at the Vatican office for relations with the Jews, suggests the same to Edward Pentin.
DOUTHAT AND PENTIN UNAWARE OF THE FALSE PREMISE
Douthat, the New York Times columnist and Edward Pentin, correspondent at the National Catholic Register are not aware of Vatican Council II Feeneyite and they are not telling the Left that the 'new theology' in the Catholic Church is based on an irrational premise and inference.
The leftist professors of theology were telling Ross Douthat that with Vatican Council II ( Cushingism version) there is no old ecclesiology. They mean it sincerely.
FEENEYITE EENS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II UNKNOWN
They can only intepret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with the Cusningite premise and inference. While Douthat cannot correct them since he does not know that there is a Feeneyite alternative and the Magisterium will not mention it for political reasons.4 Douthat and Pentin also use the same false premise.
The School of Bologna like the popes from Pius XII interpret the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and no one corrects them - except for myself.
Naturally, the enthusiasm of Faggioli and of his interviewers is explained by the fact that they identify Francis’s interpretation of Vatican II with that of the “school of Bologna.”
Lionel:
The School of Bologna interprets the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with Cushingism i.e there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. They refuse to interpret Vatcan Council II with traditional Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. Neither are there known exceptions mentioned in the text of Vatican Council to the traditional, strict interpretation of EENS 5
TWO FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKES OF FAGGIOLI AND MARTIN
We have to be aware that Massimo Faggioli and Fr. James Martin s.j make two fundamental mistakes.
1.They interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as referring to known people saved outside the Church.So philosophically they are saying that we can see and know people in 2017 or the past, who have been saved with BOD, BOB and I.I without being members of the Church.
Theologically they then conclude that BOD,BOB and I.I are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus. There are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.So their new philosophy and theology, which is now magisterial, is based on invisible people being visible at the same time.Faggioli and Martin violate the Principle of Non Contradiction here.
How can people saved in Heaven and known only to God be also on earth exceptions to the old theology, which said outside the Church there is no salvation? The new theology for them now says outside the Church there is known salvation and so the old theology is 'no more Catholic' for Faggioli.He rejects the old ecclesiology of the Church and there is a development,also for him.It is all based on visible for him cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
IN PRINCIPLE ERROR
For them, in principle, hypothetical and theoretical cases (BOD,BOB and I.I) are practical exceptions to EENS.In other words these are personally known people, living in the flesh, for them to be exceptions to traditional EENS and the 'old theology'.
2.Since in principle, hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively seen and known for Faggioli and Martin they have an irrational conclusion.In Vatican Council II LG 16, LG 8, LG 14,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 7, AG 11 etc are not hypothetical cases.Instead they are known people saved outside the Church, they are examples of exceptions to the old exclusivist ecclesiology.So Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiology.So Faggioli sincerely says 'they are theological views which are not Catholic any more'.Or, like Pope Benedict, who uses the same reasoning, says, EENS is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. He means LG 16 etc refer to visible and personally known people who are practical exceptions to the 16th century interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
We now know know that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people. So there was a mistake in the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney. We know that LG 16, UR 3 etc refer to invisible people. When Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to visible people it was an objective mistake.With his false premise Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with EENS and Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre was correct.So he should not have been excommunicated for not accepting Vatican Council II with this irrational interpretation.
The Vatican should apologize for the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr.Leonard Feeney.We now know they were doctrinally correct. 6
Similarly the SSPX is correct today in rejecting Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being considered known cases saved outside the Church.They should not be accused of being in schism.While Cardinal Raymond Burke who interprets Vatican Council II with the same reasoning as Faggioli and Martin, should be asked to affirm the Council without the irrational premise.
He could set an example for Faggioli and Martin and affirm Feeneyite EENS and reject Cushingite EENS.-Lionel Andrades
1
http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/10/28/3717003/ross-douthat-could-you-not/
http://americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/catholic-theologians-condemn-ross-douthats-recent-piece-pope
http://womenintheology.org/2015/10/27/why-i-signed-the-letter-to-the-nytimes-about-ross-douthat/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-mccarthyism-of-liberal-catholic-elites/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/thin-skinned-theologians-douthat/
2.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/opinion/sunday/the-plot-to-change-catholicism.html
4. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/you-dont-know-theology-ross-douthat-and.html
5.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/possibly-prof-massimo-faggioli-thinks.html
6.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/vatican-should-apologize-for.html
____________________
Posts
