As a liberal professor of theology at Villanova University,
USA, who has to fake the interpretation of Vatican Council II with a Fake
Premise to justify fake reforms, Massimo Faggioli has become irrelevant. His
last 50 year old theology is outdated. The knowledge of the Rational Premise
has made it stale.
We don’t have to choose
Faggioli and Villanova University’s fake interpretation of Catholic Magisterial
Documents ( Creeds, Catechisms etc), to justify fake reforms in the name of a
fake interpretation of the Council, with a fake premise.
We are now back to the
old theology of the Middle Ages since we now know that the neo-liberalism was
created with a fake reasoning. It was as fake as ‘the scientific finding’ at
the time of Teilhard de Chardin, which was not known to Chardin, before he
created his new theories and theology.
The professor of
theology at Villanova knows that he uses a fake reasoning to project his fake
Vatican II.He violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and his ‘theory’ of
Vatican II has not substance.
He has made a false
empirical judgment in the interpretation of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and
invincible ignorance (LG 16) and has projected the fake conclusion as a liberal
interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Without the False
Premise Massimo Faggioli’s interpretation of Vatican Council II is schismatic.
Since when the Council is interpreted rationally there is no rupture with
Tradition. There is no heresy. But he rejects Tradition in public. He does not
accept the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.He does not accept the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions. This is schism with the past
Magisterium.
I affirm Vatican Council
II. ? Since the Council is not a break with the past
ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church for me. I don’t use the Fake Premise. I
don’t want to create schism and heresy. I don’t have to. I can affirm Vatican
Council II and Tradition since I employ the old theology created with the
Rational Premise.
MF cannot say that I am schismatic.
But I am saying that MF is in schism since he is publically not affirming
Catholic Magisterial Documents and he confirms this also with his irrational
interpretation of the Council.It is a sin to reject the Athanasius Creed and change the meaning of the Nicene Creed. This is a sin of faith.
So we have a schismatic
Massimo Faggioli, professor of liberal theology, teaching schismatic theology
at Villanova, which is irrational for a practicing Catholic. He is also propped
by traditionalists who in ignorance use the same Fake Premise to re-interpret
Catholic Magisterial Documents and then they correctly reject Vatican Council
II, with the nontraditional conclusion. With the fake premise there has to be a nontraditional
conclusion but they do not know this.
MF needs the Lefebvrists
since they do not speak of Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational
Premise and they continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, and
remain politically correct with the Left.
The Italian leftist
government grants over a million Euros a year to the educational institution in
Bologna where Massimo Faggioli studied his theology. The FSCIRE of Alberto
Melloni calls itself a ‘scientific’ organization when it projects fake theology
created with a fake premise, which is now known in public.-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
Massimo Faggioli indicates that the traditionalists have interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise , like him, and so there is a rupture with Tradition and when they reject the Council interpreted irrationally he says they are in schism. He knows about Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise not being a break with Tradition but he will not mention it since then he will have to go into schism
Traditionalism, American-Style
It wasn’t hard to anticipate the reception that Francis’s motu proprio Traditionis custodes would get in the United States: hostile (from those already militantly opposed to the pope) or lukewarm (from most of the U.S. bishops). It follows a pattern that began in 2013, with the reception of Francis’s pontificate in general: a minority of U.S. bishops willing to show their communion of intent with the pope; a majority reluctant to engage with him one way or another; and a very small but very vocal sliver of bishops and lay intellectuals who charge Francis with breaking the Church apart.
The latest addition to this pattern is a new book raging against Traditionis custodes, a multi-authored volume titled From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War: Catholics Respond to the Motu Proprio ‘Traditionis Custodes’ on the Latin Mass. There’s a long list of very short chapters written by a number of prominent authors—some cardinals, some bishops, and Catholic activists and journalists known for their animus against Francis, among them Cardinal Raymond Burke, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, and senior writer at National Review Michael Brendan Dougherty. Carlo Maria Viganò makes a predictable appearance, but also included is Michel Onfray, the French atheist whose well-documented, unashamed anti-Catholicism is evidently no problem for the publishers of this volume as long as he professes his love for the old Mass in Latin. Their appearance between the covers of a book probably gives the authors the illusion of power and influence, but this collection shouldn’t be confused with the serious works produced by Catholic publishers with much larger revenues and market share.
Still, it does represent an escalation in the rhetoric against Francis, and it further positions the current pope as the enemy of the pope emeritus.
Lionel : Since they also interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise the confusion continues. Catholic publishers with larger revenues are also using the False Premise to produce what Pope Benedict called the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. In this case it is artificially produced with the False Premise and can be eliminated in future books.
______________________
This is remarkable coming from cardinals and bishops and anyone else who, until the beginning of Francis’s papacy, made total obedience to the pope a key element of their Catholic identity. I’m not saying schism is around the corner; it’s hard to imagine that in the universal Catholic Church. But in the Catholic “metaverse” in which many of these authors live, a schismatic mentality has taken root.
Lionel: He means they have interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise , like him, and so there is a rupture with Tradition. So they reject Vatcan Council II while he accepts it. Since they reject Vatican Council II interpreted rationally he says that they were in schism.
He knows about Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise is not a break with Tradition but not mention it.
This is a crisis in urgent need of a Catholic-to-Catholic ecumenism. It’s a different kind of situation from previous splits between Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome and those who rejected Vatican II in an earlier post-conciliar period. A helpful comparison might be the movement created by Marcel Lefebvre in the early 1970s, which ultimately led to the creation of the Society of St. Pius X and the excommunication of its leader in 1988 for illegally consecrating four bishops. True, there are similarities between today’s traditionalism and Lefebvre’s traditionalism—namely, that those rejecting liturgical reform represent just a tiny fraction of the college of cardinals, the episcopate, and the Catholic flock; and that their rejection of liturgical reform really amounts to a rejection of Vatican II. But it’s important to note the differences.
Lionel: He does not mention that if the popes and Catholics in general accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise he would be in schism.The would choose the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and be in the majority. Now in ignorance they choose the irrational version of the Council.
__________
The first is that the center of Catholic neo-traditionalism is no longer exclusively French-speaking Catholicism in Europe, but conservative Catholicism in the United States. (In this sense it should be noted that the “globalization of Catholicism” does not necessarily make the Catholic Church theologically more progressive.)
Lionel. The 'globalization' of Catholicism approved by the Left is based upon the False Premise.With the Rational Premise Catholics globally will choose the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II which is not political and which is honest.
________________
While there remains a French component to the opposition to Pope Francis and synodality, the transatlantic axis that has been in place since the eighteenth century has shifted, so that the voice of American Catholic traditionalism has become louder than the French.
Lionel : In both cases they interpret Vatican Council II with the common false premise like Faggioli and the liberals and the Alberto Melloni , Bologna School in Italy.
__________________
The second is that the though the new traditionalists make up a very small minority of Catholics, they nonetheless have an outsized voice both in conservative mainstream media and on social media. Catholic neo-traditionalism in the United States isn’t really on the fringe anymore; it’s not viewed as alien to the culture the way the French viewed Lefebvrists in the 1970s and ’80s, ridiculing the movement as vestige of nineteenth-century Catholic subculture.
Lionel : Neo- traditionalism is still on the fringe. It is when they interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents with the Rational Premise , that they will go mainstream and take the whole Church with them.
_____________________
A third difference is that neo-traditionalism is attached to and benefits from the momentum of a political crisis in the United States. Lefebvre’s movement remained at the margins of the political battles in France, but American neo-traditionalism overlaps with so-called “Catholic Trumpism” and fuels itself on never-ending culture-war issues. Prominent Catholic clergy and laity resisting Francis and his implementation of Vatican II (not just on liturgical reform) have found representation in one of the United States’s two major political parties, which gives them visibility that Lefebvre’s followers never had. At the same time, this Catholic neo-traditionalist movement does not depend entirely on the insurgency of the political right, since it seems to have adherents among the Catholic hierarchy. Ecclesial discourse itself increasingly includes culture-war language. The speech by USCCB President Archbishop Gomez earlier this month, in which he criticized America’s so-called “new religions,” is an obvious example. This has important consequences for the future: American neo-traditionalism has not had to create separate seminaries for the formation of future priests; it has transformed them from the inside. Consider the election of Bishop Steven J. Lopes as new chairman of the USCCB’s committee of liturgy. Lopes, ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, is responsible for shepherding former Anglicans who came into communion with the Church after Benedict XVI’s 2009 apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus and doesn’t even lead an ordinary Latin rite diocese. This is one more signal that on the implementation of Traditionis custodes, most of the U.S. bishops are agnostic at best, if not reluctant or resistant.
Lionel: Bishop Stephen Lopes is a liberal like Faggioli. He did not ask Fr. Vaughn Treco to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise . He did not ask Fr. Michael Nazir Ali to affirm the Athanasius Creed. He does not affirm the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as referring to invisible cases and not literal people known in 2021.
For Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.Taylor Marshall there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. There are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas' implicit baptism of desire. The priests of the Anglican Ordinariate cannot same the same.
____________________
One final difference: when Lefebvre was at work, the Church could rely on an institutional narrative of continuity between Paul VI and John Paul II in defending the authority and legitimacy of Vatican II, while at the same time making some liturgical concessions (as John Paul II did) to traditionalists.
Lionel : Now Catholics know that Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise. He had a choice. He could have interpreted the Council with the rational premise and inference and traditional conclusion.There would be no room fo the neo-liberalism.
________________
But the rupture that Benedict XVI created in advancing liturgical traditionalism (see 2007’s Summorum Pontificum) and in his policies on Vatican II is something today’s traditionalists can exploit—and they do. The new Catholic right can now take advantage of the fact that, thanks to Francis’s predecessor, the papacy is no longer identifiable with the task of defending ex officio the conciliar teachings and its reforms (promulgated by Paul VI, canonized by Francis).
Lionel: It can no longer be defended with the discovery of the Rational Premise.
________________
This is the most consequential difference between the first generation of French-speaking anti-Vatican II traditionalists and this new, English-speaking generation, which plays the game not only from inside the Church, but also from mainstream news outlets.
Lionel: 'The first generation of French-speaking anti-Vatican II traditionalists' did not know about the Rational Premise. Massimo Faggioli is now in trouble.
__________________________
The appeal to Benedict XVI in this book and elsewhere is particularly dangerous in this regard, given that the emerging Catholic right wing seems to want to roll back much of Vatican II along with the liturgical reform.
Lionel: If Pope Benedict announces that Vatican Council II can only be interpreted with the Rational Premise and the conclusion can only be traditional, it will mean that he supports the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the exclusivist ecclesiology is the same before and after Vatican Council II, for him. It will also mean that he acknowledges that he made a philosophical mistake with the use of the False Premise.It will be a new Vatican Council II which Massimo Faggioli and Alberto Melloni will have to accept.
________________________
As for how the rest of the Church—especially the U.S. hierarchy—wants to respond, it’s not quite clear yet.
Lionel: Over time they will discover that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the common mistake. It will be the only honest option and Catholics in the mainstream will take it.
_____________________
But the threat is real, and it presents a real test. How we face it will say a lot about the Church. Certainly there should be pastoral sensitivity towards those affected by Pope Francis’s motu proprio. But there certainly should not be any catering to the explicitly anti–Vatican II sentiments of these self-appointed defenders of an imagined Catholic tradition.
Lionel : There will not be any anti Vatican II sentiments from traditionalists who affirm the Council ratinally. The liberals will have to defend their irrational, heretical, schismatic and non traditional interpretation of the Council.
_____________________
The campaign against Traditionis custodes by the self-proclaimed movers-and-shakers of “orthodox Catholicism” doesn’t amount to a real schism, and for the most part their rhetoric and social-media strategy of victimization hasn’t spilled over into the discourse of American Catholics whose resentment toward Francis is more vague and amorphous—and who don’t seem to have the same subversive intent.
Lionel: Traditionis Custode is based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. This cannot be Magisterial.A correction has to be made by the two popes.
________________
Nor do they have the capabilities that the right-wing elites do—this stunt of a book being an example, which is less an appeal to ordinary Catholics than to the resentments of insiders opposed to Francis. That’s their real audience, and it’s why such books need not become bestsellers to have a long-term impact on the Church. Even as a stunt, it in some ways arrives as a manifesto in advance of the next conclave, whenever that conclave may be.
Lionel : The book is limited to the feelings of Catholics hurt with the ban on the Latin Mass. It is not restricted to the traditionalists.The decision was political.
Also the issue of the Novus Ordo Mass being political is still not discussed by the authors. Since without the False Premise and instead with the Rational Premise, the Novus Ordo Mass in France, for example, would have the traditional ecclesiology of the Latin Mass in the 16th century.It would not be approved by the Left.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/traditionalism-american-style?utm_content=buffer31891&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
Massimo Faggioli cannot interpret Vatican Council II rationally and keep his job as a professor of theology at the Villanova University
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
U.S Bishops at Baltimore will interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise and offer Holy Mass and give the Eucharist to those who also reject de fide teachings of the Church
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
Massimo Faggioli cannot interpret Vatican Council II rationally and keep his job as a professor of theology at the Villanova University
Massimo Faggioli, who would describe himself as ' a specialist on Vatican Council II' is unethical in this report in the Commonweal magazine (see below) since he knows that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being only hypothetical and not objective cases in 1965-2021 and so they would not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX which he rejects.
Over the years he has cancelled the Syllabus of Errors since for him the Syllabus of was contradicted extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past exclusivist ecumenism with LG 8, LG 16 etc,which referred to known non Catholics in the present times saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and the baptism of water.
Now he knows that LG 8 cannot be exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.
But even though he knows the truth he interprets Vatican Council II with the False Premise. If he did not use the False Premise he would have to affirm Vatican Council II like me. There would be no hermeneutic of rupture with the Catechism of Pope Paul VI ( 24Q and 27Q).
He cannot interpret Vatican Council II rationally and keep his job as a professor of theology at the Villanova University.-Lionel Andrades
It wasn’t hard to anticipate the reception that Francis’s motu proprio Traditionis custodes would get in the United States: hostile (from those already militantly opposed to the pope) or lukewarm (from most of the U.S. bishops). It follows a pattern that began in 2013, with the reception of Francis’s pontificate in general: a minority of U.S. bishops willing to show their communion of intent with the pope; a majority reluctant to engage with him one way or another; and a very small but very vocal sliver of bishops and lay intellectuals who charge Francis with breaking the Church apart.
The latest addition to this pattern is a new book raging against Traditionis custodes, a multi-authored volume titled From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War: Catholics Respond to the Motu Proprio ‘Traditionis Custodes’ on the Latin Mass. There’s a long list of very short chapters written by a number of prominent authors—some cardinals, some bishops, and Catholic activists and journalists known for their animus against Francis, among them Cardinal Raymond Burke, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, and senior writer at National Review Michael Brendan Dougherty. Carlo Maria Viganò makes a predictable appearance, but also included is Michel Onfray, the French atheist whose well-documented, unashamed anti-Catholicism is evidently no problem for the publishers of this volume as long as he professes his love for the old Mass in Latin. Their appearance between the covers of a book probably gives the authors the illusion of power and influence, but this collection shouldn’t be confused with the serious works produced by Catholic publishers with much larger revenues and market share.
Still, it does represent an escalation in the rhetoric against Francis, and it further positions the current pope as the enemy of the pope emeritus. This is remarkable coming from cardinals and bishops and anyone else who, until the beginning of Francis’s papacy, made total obedience to the pope a key element of their Catholic identity. I’m not saying schism is around the corner; it’s hard to imagine that in the universal Catholic Church. But in the Catholic “metaverse” in which many of these authors live, a schismatic mentality has taken root.
This is a crisis in urgent need of a Catholic-to-Catholic ecumenism. It’s a different kind of situation from previous splits between Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome and those who rejected Vatican II in an earlier post-conciliar period. A helpful comparison might be the movement created by Marcel Lefebvre in the early 1970s, which ultimately led to the creation of the Society of St. Pius X and the excommunication of its leader in 1988 for illegally consecrating four bishops. True, there are similarities between today’s traditionalism and Lefebvre’s traditionalism—namely, that those rejecting liturgical reform represent just a tiny fraction of the college of cardinals, the episcopate, and the Catholic flock; and that their rejection of liturgical reform really amounts to a rejection of Vatican II. But it’s important to note the differences.
The first is that the center of Catholic neo-traditionalism is no longer exclusively French-speaking Catholicism in Europe, but conservative Catholicism in the United States. (In this sense it should be noted that the “globalization of Catholicism” does not necessarily make the Catholic Church theologically more progressive.) While there remains a French component to the opposition to Pope Francis and synodality, the transatlantic axis that has been in place since the eighteenth century has shifted, so that the voice of American Catholic traditionalism has become louder than the French.
The second is that the though the new traditionalists make up a very small minority of Catholics, they nonetheless have an outsized voice both in conservative mainstream media and on social media. Catholic neo-traditionalism in the United States isn’t really on the fringe anymore; it’s not viewed as alien to the culture the way the French viewed Lefebvrists in the 1970s and ’80s, ridiculing the movement as vestige of nineteenth-century Catholic subculture.
A third difference is that neo-traditionalism is attached to and benefits from the momentum of a political crisis in the United States. Lefebvre’s movement remained at the margins of the political battles in France, but American neo-traditionalism overlaps with so-called “Catholic Trumpism” and fuels itself on never-ending culture-war issues. Prominent Catholic clergy and laity resisting Francis and his implementation of Vatican II (not just on liturgical reform) have found representation in one of the United States’s two major political parties, which gives them visibility that Lefebvre’s followers never had. At the same time, this Catholic neo-traditionalist movement does not depend entirely on the insurgency of the political right, since it seems to have adherents among the Catholic hierarchy. Ecclesial discourse itself increasingly includes culture-war language. The speech by USCCB President Archbishop Gomez earlier this month, in which he criticized America’s so-called “new religions,” is an obvious example. This has important consequences for the future: American neo-traditionalism has not had to create separate seminaries for the formation of future priests; it has transformed them from the inside. Consider the election of Bishop Steven J. Lopes as new chairman of the USCCB’s committee of liturgy. Lopes, ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, is responsible for shepherding former Anglicans who came into communion with the Church after Benedict XVI’s 2009 apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus and doesn’t even lead an ordinary Latin rite diocese. This is one more signal that on the implementation of Traditionis custodes, most of the U.S. bishops are agnostic at best, if not reluctant or resistant.
One final difference: when Lefebvre was at work, the Church could rely on an institutional narrative of continuity between Paul VI and John Paul II in defending the authority and legitimacy of Vatican II, while at the same time making some liturgical concessions (as John Paul II did) to traditionalists. But the rupture that Benedict XVI created in advancing liturgical traditionalism (see 2007’s Summorum Pontificum) and in his policies on Vatican II is something today’s traditionalists can exploit—and they do. The new Catholic right can now take advantage of the fact that, thanks to Francis’s predecessor, the papacy is no longer identifiable with the task of defending ex officio the conciliar teachings and its reforms (promulgated by Paul VI, canonized by Francis). This is the most consequential difference between the first generation of French-speaking anti-Vatican II traditionalists and this new, English-speaking generation, which plays the game not only from inside the Church, but also from mainstream news outlets.
The appeal to Benedict XVI in this book and elsewhere is particularly dangerous in this regard, given that the emerging Catholic right wing seems to want to roll back much of Vatican II along with the liturgical reform. As for how the rest of the Church—especially the U.S. hierarchy—wants to respond, it’s not quite clear yet. But the threat is real, and it presents a real test. How we face it will say a lot about the Church. Certainly there should be pastoral sensitivity towards those affected by Pope Francis’s motu proprio. But there certainly should not be any catering to the explicitly anti–Vatican II sentiments of these self-appointed defenders of an imagined Catholic tradition.
The campaign against Traditionis custodes by the self-proclaimed movers-and-shakers of “orthodox Catholicism” doesn’t amount to a real schism, and for the most part their rhetoric and social-media strategy of victimization hasn’t spilled over into the discourse of American Catholics whose resentment toward Francis is more vague and amorphous—and who don’t seem to have the same subversive intent. Nor do they have the capabilities that the right-wing elites do—this stunt of a book being an example, which is less an appeal to ordinary Catholics than to the resentments of insiders opposed to Francis. That’s their real audience, and it’s why such books need not become bestsellers to have a long-term impact on the Church. Even as a stunt, it in some ways arrives as a manifesto in advance of the next conclave, whenever that conclave may be.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/traditionalism-american-style?utm_content=buffer31891&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
FEBRUARY 26, 2021
Massimo Faggioli worked for the Bologna School (John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna ) , known for interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise
He (Massimo Faggioli) worked in the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna between 1996 and 2008 and received his Ph.D. from the University of Turin in 2002.[7] He was visiting adjunct professor at the University of Bologna, the University of Modena e Reggio Emilia, and at the Free University of Bolzano. - Wikipedia
Massimo Faggioli worked for the Bologna School (John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna ) , known for interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise. The unethical interpretation of the Council and Catechisms, is politically motivated by the Left, to hoodwink Catholics, who are kept in ignorance by the present two popes, the cardinals and bishops.- Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/11/massimo-faggioli-cannot-interpret.html
Posts
