Catholic Identity Conference speakers were using the false premise and inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II just like the liberals and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Bro. Andre Marie MICM writes:-
Don’t take my word for it. Here is Cardinal Kasper, from September 18, 2014, interview with Vaticanist, Andrea Tornielli:1
Church doctrine is not a closed system(He means with the false premise it is not a closed system.Doctrine changes. The same false premise is used by the St.Benedict Centers and the SSPX ): the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development,(with a false premise and inference there has to be a develpment. He also knows that the SSPX and SBC do not know how to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and inference.So he would not be challenged. There was no opposition also from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on this point ) leading towards an eventual enrichment.(The result is a New Theology, New Ecclesiology, New Ecumenism etc.Without the false premise and inferernce there is only the Old Theology, Old Ecumenism of Return, and Old Exclusivist Ecclesiology and Old Mission doctrine.But this seemd unknown to the SBC,SSPX, sedevacantists and pariticipants of the Catholic Identity Conference.) I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology is possible in this case [that of divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly]:(He means that if in the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the irrationality traditional ecclesiology can be changed, then why not have a similar change in moral theology.He understands the precise cause for the change in ecclesiology for the traditionalists it still is a secret. ) although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church( He means these are known elements of ecclesiality and salvation outside the institutional boundaries of the Church. This is irrational. There can be no such known cases for us human beings.We cannot see or meet any one as such.But for him it indicates there is salvation outside the Church.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is obsolete for him.Here he has used the false premise ( invisible cases of non Catholics are known to be saved outside the Church (LG 8 etc)) and false inference( these are visible and known examples of salvation outside the Church and so the past exclusivist ecclesiology is contradicted.EENS is rejected) Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognized in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, a lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that do not exist in common-law marriages.
And here are excerpts from the scandalous Relatio post disceptationem delivered in synod hall on October 13 of that same year by the Synod’s General Rapporteur, Cardinal Péter Erdő:
17. In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).( Again it is assumed that LG 8 refers to known people saved outside the Church with elements of sanctification and truth in other religions. So LG 8 becomes an exception to the dogma EENS. It is doing away with the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiology upon which depended an ecumenism of return etc.So he has used the false premise and inference here and Bro. Andre Marie has not noticed it.Similarly Cardinal Ladaria used LG 8 with the false reasoning at the Placuet Deo conference on March 1,2018 and there was not comment or correction on the website Catholicism.org. Why not? SInce the traditionalists use the same false reasoning as the CDF Prefect.)
18. In this light, the value and consistency of natural marriage must first be emphasized. Some ask whether the sacramental fullness of marriage does not exclude the possibility of recognizing positive elements even the imperfect forms that may be found outside this nuptial situation, which are in any case ordered in relation to it. The doctrine of levels of communion, formulated by Vatican Council II, confirms the vision of a structured way of participating in the Mysterium Ecclesiae by baptized persons.19. In the same, perspective, that we may consider inclusive, the Council opens up the horizon for appreciating the positive elements present in other religions (cf. Nostra Aetate, 2) and cultures, despite their limits and their insufficiencies (cf. Redemptoris Missio, 55). Indeed, looking at the human wisdom present in these, the Church learns how the family is universally considered as the necessary and fruitful form of human cohabitation. In this sense, the order of creation, in which the Christian vision of the family is rooted, unfolds historically, in different cultural and geographical expressions. (This is all a lot of nonsense here but it is important to keep in mind that without the false premise and inference the liberals would not be able to cite Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors).
1.- Lionel Andrades
http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-329.html
Posts
