Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Schneider and Abbe Barthe are Lefebvrist Cushingites: they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference and then do not like the non traditional conclusion : they have no concept of the Council interpreted without their error

BLOGS

French priest and liturgist: Abp. Viganò can help other prelates talk about ‘defective points of Vatican II’

Lionel: I don't think so. He is stuck in the Lefbvrist groove. He has absolutely no concept of a Council interpreted without the liberal and Lefebvrist false premise, which creates the New Theology.

___________________

There has been an ongoing discussion between Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider about the Second Vatican Council.

Lionel: It could be a waste of time as in the past.

___________

Mon Jun 22, 2020 - 3:15 pm EST

After a thoughtful review of the Italian archbishop's arguments in this matter, Abbé Barthe states that “some prelates, above all after the last synodal assemblies, have been led to trace the consequences of the present situation back to their causes, which were established half a century ago. Your example and your encouragement can help them to express, in conscience, for the good of the Church, their disagreement with these causes: the defective points of Vatican II.”

Lionel: Most of them do not know the cause.
 I think the prelates of the Congregation for 
the Doctrine of the Faith and Pope Benedict
would know the cause but they could have 
an interest in keeping the real cause hidden.
It is a secret which is now out. We know
the precise cause of the hermeneutic of rupture.



__________________

As we had reported earlier, Archbishop Viganò had thanked Bishop Athanasius Schneider for his June 1 statement, according to which the controversial Abu Dhabi statement signed by Pope Francis – and which states that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God” – has its roots in the Second Vatican Council's endorsement of a natural right to religious liberty and thus the concept of a natural right to believe in a false religion.

Lionel: The Second Vatican Council II affirms the stict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This would be beyond the understanding of the Lefebvrists. Since they have been conditioned to reason with the false premise.

FOR ME
Non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II). This is the Conciliar Church for me.Non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation.There is no known salvation outside the Church. The Council cannot and does not mention any known case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church.
Non Catholics have the liberty to follow their religion but this does not prevent Catholics from affirming the truths of the their faith, like the Church having exclusive salvation.

_______________________

Schneider was responding to an analysis of this Abu Dhabi statement as presented by Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Some of his statements are presented here. The German cardinal had described a way of interpretation of this papal document that could be less controversial. Among other things, he had stressed the important duty of “any religious or civil authority” of accepting “the fundamental, supranational human right to religious freedom,” while at the same time insisting that this does not mean a relativism with regard to the revealed truth. For him, the controversial statement concerning the diversity of religions as willed by God “can” be read in a relativistic manner, but it “must not” be done this way. One should, he explained, “interpret” the text and its hermeneutic and terminology “with a view on the good intention of their authors rather than with a view on the academic precision in its expressions.”

Lionel: Cardinal Muller rejected the dogma EENS. He interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise to create an artificial rupture with EENS.So his interpretation of the Council is the same as Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.

_____________________________

It was this explicit critique of a statement of the Second Vatican Council – the endorsement of religious liberty – that compelled Archbishop Viganò to publish a June 10 statement strongly criticizing the Second Vatican Council. 

“If we do not recognize,” he then wrote, “that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.” 

Lionel: He is not aware of Vatican Council II Feeneyite. There is also the  Council interpreted without the false premise and there is no rupture with Tradition.

Lefebvrists do not want to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.Since then they would be affirming EENS( Feeneyite).This would be opposed by the Jewish Left. They would be criticized by the SPLC,ADL etc.

The Lepanto Foundation interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise to avoid the Feeneyite label.The false premise is useful for Prof. Roberto dei Mattei.

It is the same with Una Voce and the Latin Mass Societies.The false premise is convenient for Dr. Joseph Shaw.

___________________________

On June 15, the Italian prelate followed up on his first intervention, coming out even stronger by stating that those “heretical propositions or those which favor heresy” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) “should be condemned, and we can only hope that this will happen as soon as possible.” He added that the Council should then be altogether “dropped” and “be forgotten.” 

He makes his own the following words of an Italian Law Professor, Paolo Pasqualucci: “If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.” 

Lionel : The Council has not deviated from the faith.Pasqualucci inteprets the Council with a false premise.So the conclusion is a deviation from the Faith.This was not known also to Archbishop Lefebvre.

___________________

It is here that Abbé Barthe's own intervention comes in. For this French priest, this last June 15 statement by Archbishop Viganò is of “great interest for the Church.” He then sums up the prelate's own analysis of the Vatican Council, which has to be done in light of what the “preceding doctrine” of the Church has been. Here, especially the conciliar texts Dignitatis Humanae (religious freedom) and Nostra Aetate (new relationship with non-Christian religions) come to mind. 

Lionel: The preceding doctrine of the Church on exclusive salvation has not been contradicted by Nostra Aetate  or  Dignitatis Humanae for me.

___________________

Abbé Barthe also discusses Archbishop Viganò’s statement that Vatican II, due to its deviations and ambiguities, should be annulled altogether. For this to be done, explains the priest, one needs to confirm Vatican II was pastoral, not doctrinal, in nature. Here, he is able to show that “the organs of the Council itself (Dz 4351) and all of its successive interpretations held that this Council was of a merely ‘pastoral’ nature, that is, not dogmatic.” 

Lionel: Typical Lefebvrist, Cushingite false analysis.

_________________

For him, it would be a way out of our current crisis by insisting again on dogmatic teachings, away from the pastoral ones. He states: “In fact, the great way out of the present magisterial crisis is to come out of what is called the 'pastoral' and to enter once again into dogmatics: that the Pope alone or the pope and the bishops united to him express themselves magisterially and no longer ‘pastorally.’” The pastoral approach, as we might add, has shown to be much more prone to doctrinal heterodoxies, as Amoris Laetitia has shown us clearly. 

Lionel. There is no doctrinal error when the Council is interpreted without the false premise.This is not understood by the Lefebvrists. Vigano will quote Schneider and Mattei will quote Remnant and Michael Matt will  quote another Cushingite Lefebvrist and  Gloria TV will only cite Lefebvrists traditionalists and so they remain in their irrational circle quoting each other in error.

__________________

It is here that Abbé Barthe echoes Archbishop Viganò’s call for other prelates to join Bishop Schneider and him in an honest debate about the problems of Vatican II, for the sake of the Church and the salvation of souls.

Lionel: Why should they ? They want to interpret 
Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition 
and the false premise is their only hope.

________________

– That which is in direct disagreement with preceding doctrine, such as the religious freedom of the declaration Dignitatis Humanae and the foundations of the new relationship with non-Christian religions of the declaration Nostra Aetate (we could also add the decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, n.3, which introduces the innovation of the idea of the “imperfect communion” that those separated from Christ and from Church are said to have with Christ and the Church,);

Lionel : There is no innovation with Unitatis Redintegratio 3 unless you use the false premise. We do not and cannot know of any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church. This would be an invisible case.But in ignorance it is always an exception to EENS for the Lefebvrists. So it is implied that UR 3 refers to a visible and known non Catholic saved outside the Church.Otherwise it could not be a rupture. This is irrational. But this is common among the Lefebvrists.They follow the bad reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO).

___________________

– The ambiguities that can be used in the sense of truth or error, such as the term “subsistit” in n. 8 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium: “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” instead of “The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.”

Lionel. Again a false premise is used here. Lumen Gentium 8 refers to a hypothetical case for me. But it contradicts exclusive salvation for the Lefebvrists. So they imply that this is an objective case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church.

This is false. We do not know any one saved outside the Church where the Catholic Church subsists. This is a non issue.

So they interpret LG 8 and UR 3 with the false premise and inference and then blame the Council.

____________________

2) These doctrinal distortions are at the origin of the errors that followed them – the proof of the “spirit of the Council.”

You explain that the deviations or the most harmful elements for the faith of Christians that mark the post-conciliar period (you cite the Abu Dhabi Declaration, but also the Day in Assisi, the liturgical reform, the use of collegiality) have their origins in these distortions.

Further, from this text it clearly emerges that the concept of the “spirit of the Council” confirms the innovative specificity of this assembly, because “there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a“post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I.”

Lionel : The spirit of the Council depends upon the false premise used by the Lefebvrists to create doctrinal deviation which is approved by the liberals and the present two popes.

__________________

3) These distortions cannot be corrected.

The efforts to correct the excesses of the Council, you say, are futile:

1. One such option is to take the insufficient path of the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Much less is this possible since this hermeneutic is not a return to the preceding magisterium but represents the search for a third way between innovation and tradition. Benedict XVI, in his discourse to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005, proposed a “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity” in opposition to the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; but by this latter statement he focused both on “traditionalists” as well as “progressives,” who both hold that Vatican II made a certain rupture.
2. Lionel: Pope Benedict interprets Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture. He uses the false premise.
3. ________________________
4. Or, one calls upon the Magisterium to “correct” the errors of Vatican II. You rightly show that this project, “even with the best of intentions, threatens the foundation of the Catholic edifice.” In reality, opposing the magisterium of tomorrow against that of today, which in turn contradicts the magisterium of yesterday, would end up meaning that no magisterial act would ever be definitive.
5. Lionel: The present two pontiffs use the false premise to interpret Magisterial documents. The past Magisterium before the 1930's avoided this error.-Lionel Andrades

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020

Abbé Barthe is the co-founder of the magazine Catholica; and he runs the newsletter Res novae, which is linked to the magazine L'Homme nouveau, which has an English edition.

He also authored different books, one of them having received a preface of Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Here are some titles:

Trouvera-t-Il encore la foi sur la terre? Une crise de l’Eglise, histoire et questions, François-Xavier de Guibert, 2006, 3rd edition
Histoire du missel tridentin et de ses origines, 2016
La Messe de Vatican II. Dossier historique, Via Romana, 2018
La Messe, une forêt de symboles. Préface du Cardinal Sarah, Via Romana, dernière édition 2020