The Oct. 1 statement issued by an annonymous group the Coetus Internationalis Patrum(CIP) Working Group (International Group of Fathers) cited Dominus Iesus against the Working Paper of the Amazon Synod- but Dominus Iesus is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.Cardinal Ratzinger was a Cushingite who rejected exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.The CIP has cited Dominus Iesus 14 and 16.
1. Amazonian diversity, which is above all religious diversity, evokes a new Pentecost (IL 30): respect for this diversity means to recognize that there are other paths to salvation, without reserving salvation exclusively to the Catholic faith. Non-Catholic Christian groups teach other modalities of being Church, without censures, without dogmatism, without ritual disciplines and ecclesial forms (IL 138); the Catholic Church ought to integrate these modalities. Reserving salvation exclusively to the Creed is destructive of the Creed (IL 39).
Against this, among other texts: Dominus Iesus 14 and 16.
This is meaningless for a Cushingite. Even Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberals would cite Dominus Iesus 14 and 16 to support the above point.
For him Dominus Iesus is Christological.Since with Cushingism he has rejected exclusive salvation in the Church.There is no ecclesiocentric ecclesiology for him. He admits it clearly in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.
So Dominus Iesus 16 on the Church does not say that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation( to avoid Hell). Since there are exceptions to the past ecclesiology, he would say all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. So non Catholics could be saved in their religions, the New Theology would suggest, without knowing and believing in Jesus.So Cardinal Ratzinger would support the point above of the Working Paper, while citing Dominus Iesus 14 and 16.
The Coetus Internationalis Patrum(CIP) needed to clarify that they interpret Dominus Iesus and Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) was Cushingite.Even at the time of the Baltimore Catechism the Americanists were Cushingite.They wanted to do away with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The pope at that time had to correct them.
The CIP needed to announce that Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate and Unitatitis Redintigratio etc no where in its entire text contradicts the past exclusivist ecclesiology, and an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors.
Without Cushingism, the present two popes and the cardinals and bishops, cannot cite Vatican Council II to contradict exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So in defending Tradition, the focus must be shifted to Cushingism and Feeneyism; the Council interpreted with the false premise or without the false invisible-people-are-visible premise.
Why must Catholics in general, the two popes must be asked, have to interpret Magisterial documents with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical?
Why should students at the pontifical universities have to study pastoral theology and ecclesiology with this irrationality? Should they not be free to interpret hypothetical and theoretical cases(LG 8 etc) as not being objective exceptions to the past exclusive ecclesiology in 2019?
Why should students at the pontifical universities have to study pastoral theology and ecclesiology with this irrationality? Should they not be free to interpret hypothetical and theoretical cases(LG 8 etc) as not being objective exceptions to the past exclusive ecclesiology in 2019?
Why must Catholics in general interpret Lumen Gentium, as an exception, to the old ecclesiology of the Church?
Why ?
There is no rational reason. This is really the irrational official position of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF). For him Lumen Gentium (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16) contradicts the past ecclesiology, even though they are only hypothetical cases.They are not real and known non Catholics, saved outside the Church.
Whatever are the arguments on Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949,Lumen Gentium does not contradict the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors for me.
Whatever are the arguments on Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949,Lumen Gentium does not contradict the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors for me.
We are not obliged to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism just because Popes Paul VI made a mistake.
This is the central pioint the CIP must address.The cardinals and bishops at the Amazon Synod, like Pope Francis, will interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 4, 2019
The Amazon Synod Working Paper contradicts Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/i-have-written-that-amazon-synod.html
OCTOBER 4, 2019
The popes from Paul VI to Francis made an objective and factual mistake on Vatican Council II and so the Amazon Synod Working Paper rejects exclusive salvation.They have interpreted the Council with the false premise
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-popes-from-paul-vi-to-francis-made.html
OCTOBER 3, 2019
There is nothing controversial to proclaim.This is the new concept of mission approved by Pope Francis and Pope Benedict. Similarly in Rome, itself, the priest at Mass has nothing controversial to say since he interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning.There is no more exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/there-is-nothing-controversial-to.html
OCTOBER 2, 2019
The ecclesiology of the Working Paper of the Amazon Synod is heretical.Liturgically it could create an opening for the abomination of desolation to be brought to the altar
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-ecclesiology-of-working-paper-of.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment