Before reading Vatican Council II it must be clear for Dr. Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon that there are no physically visible cases of non Catholics, in the present times (1965-2019) as referenced in LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. We cannot see or meet anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) or with 'good will'(GS 22) or in invincible ignorance and a good conscience(LG 16). If someone is saved outside the Church without faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14), it would only be known to God.I keep repeating this point. It is central to what I want to say.
The case of the catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved is a hypothetical case.It is a personally unknown case The person would be invisible for us.
Practically, if this person exists he would only be known to God.There are no literal cases of a non Catholic saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church where the Catholic Church subsists.LG 8 refers to a hypothetical case too, for us humans.
There are no practical exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. There are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS- Council of Florence 1441).Ad Gentes supports EENS and there are no literal exceptions to the traditional teaching, over the centuries,on the Church having exclusive salvation. Vatican Council II is really traditional on exclusive salvation.
The old ecclesiology is not contradicted with LG 8,LG 14 or LG 16. An ecumenism of return is not contradicted by UR 2( Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II), which also refers to a hypothetical case, known only to God.
Someone invisible, saved as a Protestant, cannot be visible exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology and the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.So we are reading Vatican Council II differently.
There is no contradiction when the Catechism of the Catholic Church( 1257) states all need the baptism of water for salvation( literally) and we know there are no known cases, where God, was not being restricted to the Sacraments(CCC 1257).The latter is speculative and hypothetical.
A possibility known only to God is not a real person in the present times.
So now when Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon interpret Vatican Council II, like every one else,they confuse what is invisible as being being invisible, subjective as being objective and hypothetical as being real.This was the error of the popes from Paul VI to Francis.It is the mistake of the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF),from Cardinal Ottaviani( and may be earlier) to Cardinal Ladaria, today.
It is this invisible-visible distinction which creates the hermeneutic of rupture or continuity with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, traditional Mission etc).
This was the mistake made by the Americanists at the time of the Baltimore Catechism.It was repeated in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston and then repeated in Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II should not have mentioned BOD and I.I with reference to all needing faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14). BOD and I.I are invisible cases and so are not relevant to EENS.Similarly citing hypothetical cases, is a kind of theme in the Council(UR 3,GS 22, NA 2 etc).
The error is repeated in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc which are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church was put together with this error.It is the foundation for the New Theology and New Ecclesiology.So now that we have identified the error we can re-read Vatican Council II rationally.We have found the 'missing link'which makes the Council a break with Tradition.The hypothetical red passages in the Council text do not contradict the blue orthodox passages. 1
Vatican Council II is no more Christological only. It is also ecclesiocentric. -Lionel Andrades
1
July 4, 2019
The Bologna School interprets Vatican Council II with the red being an exception to the blue and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says he supports this interpretation.He has not written about how Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the red not being an exception to the blue.
The Bologna School interprets Vatican Council II with the red being an exception to the blue
and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says he supports this interpretation.He has not
written about how Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the red not being an exception to the blue.
Since 1965 Vatican Council II is wrongly being interpreted with the red being an exception to the blue and non one has corrected the error.
The sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA still interpret Vatican Council II with the red being an exception to the blue.This is inspite of so many reports on line on this subject and e-mails sent to them.
Similarly
sedevacatists Bishop Donald Sanborn at his seminary in Florida will not
state that Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents can be
interpreted with the red not being an exception to the blue.
In
the Diocese of Manchester, USA the sedevacantist community, Congregatio
Mariae Reginau Immaculatae(CMRI),under Bishop Mark Pivarunas, also
interpret Vatican Council II with the red being an exception to the
blue.
Similarly Bishop Williamson and the SSPX groups do not discuss this issue and correct the error in public.
The
Diocese of Manchester needs to help the CMRI community and not condemn
as not being Catholic.They have to be shown that with the red not being
an exception to the blue, the Council does not contradict the past
ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.So then there is no reason for
the CMRI to go into sedevacantism based upon Vatican Council II.
July 10, 2019
If the SSPX bishops and priests are excommunicated they would simply have to respond like any normal Catholic and say they refuse to interpret Vatican Council II with the red passages being exceptions to the blue passages. The red passages are not exceptions to the blue passages for them and the CDF has made an objective mistake.
If
the SSPX bishops and priests are excommunicated they would simply have
to respond like any normal Catholic and say they refuse to interpret
Vatican Council II with the red passages being exceptions to the blue passages.
The red passages are not exceptions to the blue passages for them and the CDF has made an objective mistake.
-Lionel Andrades
_____________________
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGESBEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGESNOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL.
No comments:
Post a Comment