“Carthago delenda est! (So, what about Vatican II?)
Written by By Father Michael Johnson, FSSPX The Lefebvrists still do not admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvrist and the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) made a major mistake.
The traditionalists keep silent on the issue.They have been doing this for years.
They will interpret Vatican Council II like the liberals and then focus on the negative. Fr. Michael Johnson on the Remant News has interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally . He sees orthodox passages placed along side ambiguous passages, in the Council text. The ambiguous passages contradict the orthodox passages. So the Council emerges heretical . He does not see the ambiguous passages as being only hypothetical
He does not see them as being speculative and theoretical only.
If they were hypothetical, speculative and theoretical only for him, they would contradict the orthodox passages.But since for him they contradict the orthodox passages, he implies, that the ambiguous passages, refer to objective, non- hypothetical and personally known non Catholics, saved outside the Church.Only in this way they could contradict the orthodox passages.
This is the false reasoning at the Socieity of St,. Pius X seminaries and also the principal seminaries and universities in Rome.
This was the reasoning of Jim Russell in a report on Church Militant TV, titled 'Fr.Feeney's strange doctrine' . Russell cited Vatican Council II with Lumen Gentium etc, referring the objective examples of salvation outside the Church. He also cited the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which made the same mistake.
Then he condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney for not using the same irrational reasoning. Russell was a liberal. Michael Voris was possibly forced to post that article on CMTV after he visited the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA.Voris' call for an interview was turned down by the Curia in the Diocese, of Manchester under Bishop Peter Libasci.
Then he condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney for not using the same irrational reasoning. Russell was a liberal. Michael Voris was possibly forced to post that article on CMTV after he visited the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA.Voris' call for an interview was turned down by the Curia in the Diocese, of Manchester under Bishop Peter Libasci.
Now that I have shown how Vatican Council II can be interpreted without confusing what is hypothetical and objective why does Fr. Michael Johnson not comment on it?
Why not?
Since is easy to project a false interpretation of Vatican Council. It is difficult to affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church(AG 8).This could be a reason why CMTV posted Jim Russell's report.
They do not want to say, at the Remannt, that all non Catholics in 2019 are on the way to Hell unless they enter the Church and there are no known exceptions.
They do not want to say, at the Remannt, that all non Catholics in 2019 are on the way to Hell unless they enter the Church and there are no known exceptions.
If there are no known exceptions to EENS then Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong. Since he interpreted Vatican Council II as having exceptions to EENS.He also did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Bishop Bernard Fellay has interpreted LG 16, UR 3 etc as being exceptions to EENS.The proof is there on line.
So is Michael Matt Editor at the Remant going to comment on this ?
No.
He will continue to interpret the Council with the irrationality, used also by Cardinals Kasper and Koch. He will agree with their conclusion and then run down the Council.It is as if Vatican Council II interpreted without the bad premise does not exist. This was the error made by his father and Archbishop Lefebvre.He wants to 'unite the clans' while affirming the heresy of the liberals.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment