Irrespective of Pope Benedict's personal view on different subjects the Council had to be a radical break with Tradition since a false premise and inference was used to discard exclusive salvation. This is Pope Benedict's Achilles' heel. This was a small but important point that he and his group over looked.It was a small give away.
They needed an actual theology, something real to make the break. So they could have thought, "Lets confuse the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This would make EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors obsolete."
With all their complicated reasoning they did not realize that there could not be objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Physically it is not possible.
Sometimes the reality of life can be embarassing.
The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance could not be exceptions to EENS. Yet upon this error they created a New false Theology.
In spite of Pope Benedict's personal views on different subjects, the Council had to be radical break with Tradition, at the level of theology, since a false premise and inference would expectedly discard exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger has in public rejected exclusive salvation in the Church and cited Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, in two papers of the International Theological Commission.He has also interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise in those ITC reports, to reject Feeneyite EENS.
This is where he actually uses theology to make the break. It is concrete.
The world religions were now not paths to salvation for him. Cardinal Ladaria, Cardinal Muller and Archbiships Di Noia and Pozzo, and others whom he employed at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, followed his New Theology.
The same Christocentric, and not ecclesiocentric interpretation of Vatican Council II, is the model for the Lefebvrists, present day liberals and Peter Sewald and Maike Hickson.This is the new politically correct understanding of the Church, from Paul VI to Francis,which is a rupture with the Magisterium of the 1930's and the previous centuries.So they are looking at Vatican Council II with the same vision as Pope Benedict.
Until Rorate Caeili, the Lefebvrists and Maike Hickson are willing to see Vatican Council II without the false premise; without Pope Benedict's false New Theology, they will be stuck in the Masonic understanding of the Catholic Church.
If the Lefebvrists continue to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise, and not without it, the Council will continue to be a break with Tradition and this will not be the fault of Pope Benedict. -Lionel Andrades
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/12/rorate-exclusivenew-biography-describes.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment