So the new German Prefect of the CDF, like Cardinal Ladaria, is a modernist on Vatican Council II. He interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. He is a political appointee. It was the same for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
In two papers of the International Theological Commission, Ratzinger and Ladaria, interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. There has been no denial from the CDF.
For me, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always hypothetical and physically invisible. So Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition. The Council supports the past ecclesiocentrism. The Council is Feeneyite. It is dogmatic (AG 7/EENS).
So I choose to interpret rationally the concepts, collegiality based upon Tradition, an ecumenism of return only, religious liberty in a Catholic State, mission in interreligious dialogue, traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation etc. There is no break with Tradition.
Why should I interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Secretary of the CDF? There is a rational and traditional choice. LG 8 etc always refer to invisible cases. This is common sense.
Look at the damage Ratzinger, Muller, Ladaria etc have done as Prefects of the CDF.Now Ratzinger and Ladaria do not have it in them to correct the error in public.Ladaria is leaving without putting things straight.
Even the SSPX bishops are supporting Ladaria and interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. I choose to interpret the Council in harmony with the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 845,846) and the Catechisms of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q).
When Ladaria interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with the Catechisms, he was not Magisterial. How can the Holy Spirit confuse what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit, unknown as being known, to produce a new theology ( outside the Church there is known salvation) and new doctrines ( everyone does not need to enter the Church for salvation etc) ? This is schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium, which avoided this confusion.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) was irrational. The premise (visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) was false.Ratzinger, Rahner, Congar, Kung and Murray, among others, used this false premise at Vatican Council II to break with Tradition. Pope Paul VI approved the error.
So why should we accept the new German Prefect of the CDF? He is in public heresy. Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition. He needs to end the scandal before offering Holy Mass in the vernacular. There is an impediment. 1
1.
DECEMBER 25, 2022
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment