Rorate Caeili and Roberto dei Mattei have posted
another report in which they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not
rationally.So they remain politically correct with the Left. Mattei stays in
good standing with the Catholic Church in Italy.
“Complexities and paradoxes in the history of the
Church”: Vatican II, John XXIII, Ottaviani, and the Tucho Fernández challenge-
by Roberto de Mattei
July 26, 2023
The appointment of Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández as prefect of the
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has a symbolic weight of great import.
In a certain sense, it represents the culmination of the pontificate of Pope
Francis, who has meant to send a clear sign to those he referred to, at his
meeting on 24 November 2022 with the members of the International Theological
Commission, as the “backward-looking” of the Church.
Lionel : This is not the culmination.Mattei
accepts Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. So he is safe. But those
orthodox Catholics who reject Vatican Council II, irrational , which is
heretical and schismatic will be labeled ‘radical fanatics’, as noted on the
website of the Jubillee 2025.
___________________
Another signal in this direction is the appointment of 21 cardinals — including
Fernández himself — for the consistory in September, which will precede the
opening of the Synod on synodality. Francis wants to ensure that the direction
in which he has steered the Church will not be changed by his successor, since
“there is no going back”.
Lionel : If cardinals and bishops announce that
they interpret Vatican Council II, with LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc, as
referring to hypothetical cases only, the Church returns to the past.
___________________
So, are they in the right who are convinced that Pope Francis’s latest selections are the expression of a radical break with the pontificates that preceded his? Is Francis the worst pope in history, or perhaps, as some think, even an antipope?
Lionel : This is all meaningless once you start interpreting Vatican Council II rationally.
___________________________
For the historian, the reality is more complex. In the last sixty years,
the points of departure from the Tradition of the Church have been many, but
the first and most eloquent reversal of perspective dates back to the 11
October 1962 address Gaudet Mater Ecclesia with which John XXIII opened the
Second Vatican Council.
Lionel: He had accepted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston which made an objective mistake and so created a New Theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation, there are visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_____________________________
Pope Francis’s letter to the new prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, in its language and content, has much which resonates with that document. In the central passage of Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, John XXIII explained that Vatican II had not been convened to condemn errors or formulate new dogmas, but to present the Church’s traditional teaching in language suited to the new times. John XXIII affirmed that:
“[A]s for the present time, the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine
of mercy instead of taking up the weapons of rigour; she thinks that she must
meet the needs of the day, presenting the value of her teaching more clearly
rather than condemning… In fact, the deposit of Faith is one thing, that is,
the truths that are contained in our venerable doctrine; the way in which they
are announced is another, but always in the same sense and with the same
acceptation. Great importance must be granted to this method, and if necessary,
it must be applied with patience; that is, one must adopt the form of
exposition most in keeping with the magisterium, the nature of which is
predominantly pastoral.”
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076
So they rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They chose to interpret Magisterial Documents with Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism. There was new ecclesiology which was being pastorally implemented.
______________________
John XXIII attributed a specific pastoral character to the Council that was opening.
Lionel: Yes.
They had agreed that since Pius XII had not objected to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and
neither defended Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) was obsolete. There were
objective exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible
ignorance for EENS. Pastorally Tradition was obsolete. There was a new
ecclesiology which had to be implemented. Vatican Council II was to be a
liberal, leftist attack on EENS.
Pope Paul VI
lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney without affirming Feeneyite
EENS. The Jesuit priest did not recant. He cited the Athanasius Creed and still the
excommunication remained lifted.
________________
Historians of the school of Bologna have defined the pastoral
dimension of Vatican II as “constitutive”. This pastoral dimension became the
form of the Magisterium par excellence. At first this was not evident to all,
but in the following months and years, it became clear that John XXIII’s
allocution was the manifesto of a new ecclesiology. And this ecclesiology,
according to progressive theologians, was supposed to be the foundation of a
new Church, opposed to the “Constantinian” one of Pius XII. A Church no longer
militant, no longer defining and assertive, but itinerant and in dialogue: a
synodal church.
___________________________
In this new perspective, the Holy Office, which for centuries had been the
Church’s bulwark against the errors that attacked it, no longer had a reason to
exist, or in any case, had to change its mission.1
Lionel: The Holy
Office (CDF/DDF) made an objective error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It
was political.They projected the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) as exceptions for EENS. As if there known and visible cases of the BOD and I.I. This mistake is still not corrected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith.Cardinal Ratzinger supported the invisible-visible confusion. He did not correct it. Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio
are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.
Pius XII in
Mystici Corporis did not point out the difference between a rational and
irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance.
___________________
On 8 November 1963, the cardinal archbishop of Cologne, Josef Frings
(1887–1978), asked to speak and, to general surprise, launched a violent attack
against the Holy Office, directed by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (1890–1979). In
front of all the bishops of the Church gathered under the presidency of the
pope, Frings denounced the “immoral methods” of the Holy Office, stating that
its procedure “no longer suits our age, harms the Church and is an object of
scandal for many”.
Lionel: The Supreme
Pontiff and the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) were interpreting Magisterial Documents
irrationally, since they interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance irrationally. So when the Creeds and Catechisms refer to
BOD and I.I there is confusion. There is also confusion now with LG 8, LG 15,
UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. They can be interpreted in two ways.We have two interpretations of Vatican Council II, Feeneyite and Cushingte. There are two interpretations of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyite and Cushingite. There are two interpretations of the Nicene Creed, Feeneyite and Cushingite, there are two interpretations of the Catechisms etc.
___________________________
______________________
Three years later, in 1968, Cardinal Frings led the contestation of the
Central European bishops against the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI. Fr
Joseph Ratzinger, who had been the inspirer and ghostwriter of Cardinal Frings
at the Council, as Archbishop Victor Fernández has been of Pope Francis, at
that time began to distance himself from the more progressive wing of the
Church, founding the journal Communio in 1972, with Hans von Balthasar, Henri
de Lubac and Walter Kasper. In 1981, having been appointed archbishop of Munich
and cardinal, he was appointed by John Paul II as prefect of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, which he directed for 24 years. Cardinal Frings’
theologian became the head of the congregation that Frings had publicly
attacked at the Council.
______________________
After Paul VI closed the Second Vatican Council on 8 December 1965, the
“reform” of the Curia was the first initiative to implement the conciliar
revolution launched by John XXIII. The curial edifice, built up by previous
popes over the centuries, was systematically demolished by Paul VI. What was
needed, for starters, was a symbolic event: the transformation of the
Congregation of the Holy Office, which on the eve of the closing of the Council
was also given a new name with the motu proprio Integrae Servandae. On the
afternoon of 6 December 1965, L’Osservatore Romano published the decree that
abolished the Index of Prohibited Books and turned the Holy Office into the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stating that “it now seems better
that the defence of the faith should take place through the effort to promote
doctrine”.
________________
Paul VI appointed the Belgian theologian Charles Moeller (1912–1986), a champion
of ecumenist progressivism, as undersecretary of the Congregation, pending the
anticipated resignation of Cardinal Ottaviani, which came on 30 December 1967.
“Moeller,” Fr Yves-Marie Congar wrote in his Diary, “is 100% ecumenism, he is
openness to man, interest in his pursuits, in culture. He is dialogue.”3
__________________
Congar himself, on two occasions (in 1946 and in 1954), urinated on the
door of the Holy Office, as a sign of contempt for the supreme institution of
the Church.4 On 26 November 1994, he was made a cardinal by John Paul II. This,
no less memorable than the appointment of Archbishop Fernández by Pope Francis,
demonstrates how complex and sometimes paradoxical history is — rich in events,
on a symbolic level.
Lionel: Congar
like Victor Manuel Fernandes are obsolete on Vatican Council II.We are
obligated not to follow them. Fernandez does not qualify to be aq cardinal. Since a cardinal must interpret the Council honestly. He must also affirm Church teachings and doctrines in their original meaning. Fernandez and my interpretation of the Creeds are different. We do not have unity on the Catechisms. He has to reject the Fourth Lateran Council since he is a Cushingite. I don't have to do this.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
