Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Phil Lawler must stop talking in vague and general terms about Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition and instead they should specify how the false premise creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.We now know the precise cause of the break with Tradition.So they can affirm Vatican Council Ii without the common false premise and inference which creates a non traditional conclusion.
When Archbishop Vigano and Phil Lawler interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation(Athanasius Creed) then their conclusion will be non traditional and different from mine.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, etc are not exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
So there is a precise reason for the difference between our conclusions on Vatican Council II.
If they interpret the Council, like me, and not like Pope Paul VI , then Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with the traditional teaching on the Church having a separation and exclusiveness in salvation.There is no rupture with EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Archbishop Vigano is free to make an announcement on this issue and correct the interpretation of EENS and Vatican Council II, by the present archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley.Cardinal Malley could apologise for the error of the former archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing, in the excommunication of the priest and his dismissal from the Jesuit community.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment