Comments from the blog 1Peter5 : Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed
Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal
- http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents
- -are-non-doctrinal/
- ___________________________________________
Some of us have argued, on the contrary, that communion
means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience
to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and
thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain
nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem
[was] merely doctrinal.
means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience
to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and
thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain
nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem
[was] merely doctrinal.
Lionel: Pope Benedict's new theology was
a rupture with the Faith.If we avoid his
new theology in the interpretation of
magisterial documents there is a
continuity with Tradition. There
is then no doctrinal problem.
a rupture with the Faith.If we avoid his
new theology in the interpretation of
magisterial documents there is a
continuity with Tradition. There
is then no doctrinal problem.
_________________________________
Otherwise, many of our favorite canonist Cardinals (e.g.
Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error.
Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error.
Lionel. Cardinal Ottaviani was in
error since he accepted the new
theology in the Fr. Leonard Feeney
case.
error since he accepted the new
theology in the Fr. Leonard Feeney
case.
________________________________
Let's not forget what our Lord said precisely about obedience
to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors
of the law after all.
to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors
of the law after all.
Lionel: The contemporary
magisterium with the new
theology is supporting an innovation
in doctrine. They have discarded
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus in doctrine and praxis and
are interpreting Vatican Council
II assuming it is a rupture with
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus.The SSPX is doing the same.
magisterium with the new
theology is supporting an innovation
in doctrine. They have discarded
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus in doctrine and praxis and
are interpreting Vatican Council
II assuming it is a rupture with
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus.The SSPX is doing the same.
_________________________________
One obeys those who sit in the seat not merely because
they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which
simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which
simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
Lionel: Would it be nominalism
to assume hypothetical cases
are explicit in the present times
simply the popes since Pius XII
supported this error?
to assume hypothetical cases
are explicit in the present times
simply the popes since Pius XII
supported this error?
_____________________________
What is said from the seat must actually bind one
to an assent of faith because it is true.
to an assent of faith because it is true.
Lionel: Exactly but this is not
so now.
so now.
______________________________
"Ecumenism," for example, is neither true nor false
because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
Lionel: Yes but when UR 3 is
assumed to refer to an explicit
case in the present times then
it would mean there are known
cases of Christians, who are
saved outside the Church,
they are saved without
being formal members of
the Church. So there is
no more an excumenism
of return.With the new
theology based upon
this irrationality, ecumenism
in particular and the faith in
general has been changed.
assumed to refer to an explicit
case in the present times then
it would mean there are known
cases of Christians, who are
saved outside the Church,
they are saved without
being formal members of
the Church. So there is
no more an excumenism
of return.With the new
theology based upon
this irrationality, ecumenism
in particular and the faith in
general has been changed.
_____________________________
Our Lord was not counseling blind obedience
to everything the Pharisees said from their seats
of authority. Quite the contrary!
to everything the Pharisees said from their seats
of authority. Quite the contrary!
Lionel: So we can question
those who interpret Vatican
Council II with an irrationality
and then expect the SSPX
to do the same for canonical
acceptance.We can also
question Archbishop Lefebvre's
mistake in assuming LG 16,
UR 3 etc referred to explicit
cases and so Vatican Council
II was break with Tradition.
those who interpret Vatican
Council II with an irrationality
and then expect the SSPX
to do the same for canonical
acceptance.We can also
question Archbishop Lefebvre's
mistake in assuming LG 16,
UR 3 etc referred to explicit
cases and so Vatican Council
II was break with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
There needs to be an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican, simply saying hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to Tradition
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/there-needs-to-be-agreement-between.html
If the Vatican regularises the SSPX and they could do so, it will not have cleared up the doctrinal issue.It will be also be assumed that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II with the doctrinal error, with heresy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/if-vatican-regularises-sspx-and-they.html
The next time you hear Bishop Fellay criticize Vatican Council II know it is for the liberal lobby he indirectly supports them : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake in principle and was not aware of it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/the-next-time-you-hear-bishop-fellay.html
No comments:
Post a Comment