The 120 or more papal electors are interpreting Vatican Council II with 1) Cushingism and not Feeneyism. 2) For them the passages in red contradict the passages in blue. 3) In the model of the Two Columns they choose the irrational model . This is unethical. It is dishonest and people know about it.
From Rorate Caili
Michael Charlier: "Francis Secures His Legacy"
It is objected here and there against the present
new appointments that Francis thereby (once again!) exceeds the upper limit of
120 papal electors ordered by Paul VI. While this is true, it is meaningless:
the pope is ultimately not bound by any orders of his predecessors. And, after
all, the newly appointed officials, instructed by a handwritten letter, could
one day learn this to their chagrin. Where such orders had been issued in the
form of laws, it would of course be good style to change the law before
proceeding differently -- but that is not an obstacle to proceeding differently.
Incidentally, precisely with regard to the
manipulation of the upcoming conclave, Francis is faithfully following the
example of Paul VI, who, with the arbitrary introduction of the age limit of 80
for papal electors -- which is not according to any tradition in the Church --
quite obviously pursued the intention of excluding older cardinals, more rooted
in the "pre-conciliar spirit," from the election of his successor.
Nothing new, then, from post-conciliar Rome.-
Peter Kwasnieski, Michael Charlier:
"Francis Secures His Legacy", Rorate Caeili
Peter Kwasniewski and Michael Charlier still do not
get it. The 120 or more papal electors are interpreting Vatican Council II with 1) Cushingism and not Feeneyism. 2) For them the passages in red contradict the
passages in blue. 3) In the model of the Two Columns they choose the irrational
model to interpret Vatican Council II. This is unethical. It is dishonest and
people know about it.
May be Kwasniewski still does not understand but there
are people who understand that this is immoral. They understand how a fake rupture was created with Tradition with the use of an irrational premise ( invisible people are visible). So the inference is visible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) are practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.This is Cushingism. This is choosing the wrong Column. The red is an exception for the blue.
The papal electors must only
interpret Vatican Council II rationally, with Feeneyism, with the red not being
an exception for the blue and with the rational column.
Once the cardinals know this and choose to interpret
the Council rationally they become conservative or traditionalists immediately.
There is no theological opening for liberalism, like the new ecumenism, new
ecclesiology, new evangelization etc. The Church returns, with Feeneyism, to
the lex orandi of only the past.
This is not because the Church chooses a new theology
but because it simply avoids the philosophical error ( observing invisible
beings as being visible) and returns to the old exclusivist theology of the
Catholic Church. It is automatic.
So when the cardinals are no more liberals, because they begin to intepret Vatican Council II rationally, the next pope is expected to be
conservative. The popes have to be conservative since the Council would become conservative. It would be traditional and
Feeneyite and not traditional and Cushingite or Lefebvrist. -Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment