-Lionel Andrades
Monday, July 27, 2020
Once Vigano and Schneider interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise it will be Michael Sean Winters and the liberals who will have to reject Vatican Council II and turn schismatic
This would mean the main line Church- the lay movements for example, have an opportunity to be traditional, conservative and Feeneyite without rejecting the Council.
__________________
Once the mainstream Church interprets Vatican Council II without the false premise the Church would return to exclusive salvation.This would put some of the liberal groups in the minority, or may be in some countries, the fringe category.
_________________________________
__________________
Once the mainstream Church interprets Vatican Council II without the false premise the Church would return to exclusive salvation.This would put some of the liberal groups in the minority, or may be in some countries, the fringe category.
_________________________________
Who still stands with Viganò? Jul 27, 2020
Now, at long last, most conservatives have come to view Viganò as a liability, not an asset, and they are throwing him under the bus. In his blog "Settimo Cielo," Sandro Magister, the conservative Vaticanista, took on Viganò last week over the archbishop's criticisms of the Second Vatican Council. Magister is not exactly friendly to Francis, but he saw Viganò's wholesale rejection of Vatican II as beyond the pale. "If this rejection by Viganò of the whole of Vatican Council II is not a schismatic act, it is undoubtedly on the brink," Magister wrote. "But who among the bishops and cardinals will want to follow him? Probably no one."
Lionel: But if Vigano interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise there would be a crisis for Sandro Magister.Since when cardinals and bishops are informed why would they choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally ?
Schneider has also called for corrections in certain documents of Vatican II, specifically those that can be seen as the texts that corrected the Syllabus of Errors: Dignitatis humanae and Nostra aetate.
Lionel: There are no texts in Vatican Council II which contradict the Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus of Errors is only contradicted when LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are interpreted as exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Yes they would be an exception to the Syllabus of Errors. But this would also be a false premise.
It would be presuming that LG 8 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church for them to be exceptions to EENS.Who among us has see or met an exception to EENS in 2020 ? No one. So the false premise is what is invisible is visible. Then further conclusions are made. A new theology is created.
So only by confusing what is invisible as being visible can Michael Sean Winters like Sandro Magister and Bishop Schneider project exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.
____________________________
These were the texts that caused Archbishop Michel Lefebvre to go into schism, and they continue to cause consternation for those who are dipping their toes into the schismatic waters. (For more on this issue, see my two-part review of Jesuit Fr. Jared Wicks' book Investigating Vatican II here and here.)
Lionel: Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there was a rupture with Tradition.He then rejected the Council. This is schismatic for Winters.
But I interpret Vatican Council II without the common false premise. So there is no rupture with Tradition. So I am not schismatic. I accept the Council.
Bishop Schneider could do the same as me.So could
Archbishop Carlo Vigano.
This would be a correction of the writings of Fr.Jared Wicks sj who interpreted the Council with the false premise and created a non traditional conclusion.
Once Vigano and Schneider interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise it will be Michael Sean Winters and the liberals who will have to reject Vatican Council II and so dip their toes into schismatic waters.
______________________________
Magister cites a letter written by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller — a church historian by training and one of the four cardinals who had signed the "dubia" challenging Francis on the issue of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics — disputing Schneider and exposing his errors. Magister also wonders why Cardinal Gerhard Müller, ex-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has sat on the sidelines in the debate about Vatican II. When you are a conservative and one of the dubia cardinals criticizes you, it is time to recalibrate.
Lionel: What if Brandmuller and Muller interpreted Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents without the common false premise ? This would be a crisis for Winters and the rest at the National Catholic Reporter. It would mean Catholics in general could accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors. This would mean the main line Church- the lay movements for example, have an opportunity to be traditional, conservative and Feeneyite without rejecting the Council.
Consider the reaction of the liberals in Germany !
________________________________
There will always be a fringe element in the church. What is worrisome is when someone tries to mainstream the fringe.
Lionel : Once the mainstream Church interprets Vatican Council II without the false premise the Church would return to exclusive salvation.This would put some of the liberal groups in the minority, or may be in some countries, the fringe category.-Lionel Andrades
Bishop Schneider could answer one simple question: Does LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2; GS 22 refer to hypothetical cases only in 2020 or are these references to physically visible cases in the present times ?
From Gloria TV
Bishop Schneider Lists the Errors in Vatican II
The Open Letter signed by 50 scholars and clergy thanking Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider for their views on Vatican Council II was a lot of nonsense.
The Open Letter signed by 50 scholars and clergy thanking Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider for their views on Vatican Council II was a lot of nonsense. 1
They interpreted the Council like the liberals.
Here is a break down of their message with comments.
Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider
July 9, 2020
Your Excellencies:
We the undersigned wish to express our sincere gratitude for your fortitude and care for souls during the ongoing crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church. Your public statements calling for an honest and open discussion of the Second Vatican Council and the dramatic changes in Catholic belief and practice that followed it have been a source of hope and consolation to many faithful Catholics. The event of the Second Vatican Council appears now more than fifty years after its completion to be unique in the history of the Church. Never before our time has an ecumenical council been followed by such a prolonged period of confusion, corruption, loss of faith, and humiliation for the Church of Christ.
Catholicism has distinguished itself from some false religions by its insistence that Man is a rational creature and that religious belief encourages rather than suppresses critical reflection by Catholics. Many, including the current Holy Father, appear to place the Second Vatican Council—and its texts, acts, and implementation—beyond the reach of critical analysis and debate. To concerns and objections raised by Catholics of good will, the Council has been held up by some as a “super-council,” (1) the invocation of which ends rather than fosters debate. Your call to trace the current crisis in the Church to its roots and to call for action to correct any turn taken at Vatican II that is now seen to have been a mistake exemplify the fulfillment of the episcopal office to hand on the Faith as the Church has received it.
We are grateful for your calls for an open and honest debate about the truth of what happened at Vatican II and whether the Council and its implementation contain errors or aspects that favor errors or harm the Faith. Such a debate cannot start from a conclusion that the Second Vatican Council as a whole and in its parts is per se in continuity with Tradition. Such a pre-condition to a debate prevents critical analysis and argument and only permits the presentation of evidence that supports the conclusion already announced. Whether or not Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition is the question to be debated, not a posited premise blindly to be followed even if it turns out to be contrary to reason. The continuity of Vatican II with Tradition is a hypothesis to be tested and debated, not an incontrovertible fact.(It is a continuity with Tradition when the false premise is not used by the liberals and Lefebvrists. This is an incontrovertible fact ) For too many decades the Church has seen too few shepherds permit, let alone encourage, such a debate.
Eleven years ago, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini had already made a filial request to Pope Benedict XVI: “The idea (which I dare now to submit to Your Holiness) has been in my mind for a long time. It is that a grandiose and if possible final clarification of the last council be given concerning each of its aspects and contents. Indeed, it would seem logical, and it seems urgent to me, that these aspects and contents be studied in themselves and in the context of all the others, with a close examination of all the sources, and from the specific viewpoint of continuity with the preceding Church’s Magisterium, both solemn and ordinary. On the basis of a scientific and critical work—as vast and irreproachable as possible—in comparison with the traditional Magisterium of the Church, it will then be possible to draw matter for a sure and objective evaluation of Vatican II.” (2) ( Msgr. Brunero Gherardini interpreted the Council with a false premise just like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof. Roberto dei Mattei and the present two popes,the cardinals and bishops. )
We also are grateful for your initiative in identifying some of the most important doctrinal topics that must be addressed in such a critical examination and for providing a model for frank, yet courteous, debate that can involve disagreement. We have collected from your recent interventions some examples of the topics you have indicated must be addressed and, if found lacking, corrected. This collection we hope will serve as a basis for further detailed discussion and debate. We do not claim this list to be exclusive, perfect, or complete. We also do not all necessarily agree with the precise nature of each of the critiques quoted below nor on the answer to the questions you raise, yet we are united in the belief that your questions deserve honest answers and not mere dismissals with ad hominem claims of disobedience or breaking with communion. If what each of you claims is untrue, let interlocutors prove it; if not, the hierarchy should give credence to your claims.
Religious Liberty for All Religions as a Natural Right Willed by God
- Bishop Schneider: “Examples include certain expressions of the Council on the topic of religious freedom (understood as a natural right, and therefore positively willed by God, to practice and spread a false religion, which may also include idolatry or even worse)....” (3)
- (This is a reference to a secular state and not a Catholic state ).
- Bishop Schneider: “Unfortunately, just a few sentences later, the Council [in Dignitatis Humanae] undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, ‘not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits’ (ut in re religiosa neque impediatur, quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites, n. 2). According to this statement, man would have the right, based on nature itself (and therefore positively willed by God) not to be prevented from choosing, practicing and spreading, also collectively, the worship of an idol, and even the worship of Satan, since there are religions that worship Satan, for instance, the ‘church of Satan.’ Indeed, in some countries, the ‘church of Satan’ is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions.” (4)
- (Not in a Catholic State.In a secular state this is the defacto position.)
The Identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and the New Ecumenism
- Bishop Schneider: “[I]ts [the Council’s] distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (the problem of “subsistit in” gives the impression that two realities exist: the one side, the Church of Christ, and on the other, the Catholic Church); and its stance towards non-Christian religions and the contemporary world.” (5)
- (Lumen Gentium 8 (subsistit in) has been interpreted with the false premise here.)
- Bishop Schneider: “To state that Muslims adore together with us the one God (“nobiscum Deum adorant”), as the II Vatican Council did in Lumen Gentium n. 16, is theologically a highly ambiguous affirmation. That we Catholics adore with the Muslims the one God is not true. We do not adore with them. In the act of adoration, we always adore the Holy Trinity, we do not simply adore “the one God” but, rather, the Holy Trinity consciously—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Islam rejects the Holy Trinity. When the Muslims adore, they do not adore on the supernatural level of faith. Even our act of adoration is radically different. It is essentially different. Precisely because we turn to God and adore Him as children who are constituted within the ineffable dignity of divine filial adoption, and we do this with supernatural faith. However, the Muslims do not have supernatural faith.” (6)
- (This could be a reference to the Creator. The Creator is One.
- However Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. We known that the non Christians do not have that faith which is necessary for salvation.This petition does not cite Vatican Council II(AG 7). Since its intention was to prove that Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition. So no distinction is made between invisible or visible cases of LG 8 etc ).
- Archbishop Viganò: “We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that it is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus“Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.” (7)
- _____________________________
Papal Primacy and the New Collegiality
- Bishop Schneider: “For example, the very fact that a ‘nota explicativa praevia’ to the document Lumen Gentium was needed shows that the text of Lumen Gentium, in n. 22, is ambiguous with regard to the topic of the relationship between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality. Documents clarifying the Magisterium in post-conciliar times, such as the encyclicals Mysterium Fidei, Humanae Vitae, and Pope Paul VI’s Creed of the People of God, were of great value and help, but they did not clarify the aforementioned ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council.” (8)
- (When Magisterial Documents, including Vatican Council II are interpreted with a false premise they would have to be ambigous or outright wrong )
The Council and Its Texts are the Cause of Many Current Scandals and Errors
- Archbishop Viganò: “If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an ‘episcopal vicaress’ in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy.” (9)
- (If the popes, cardinals and bishops would interpret Magisterial documents without the false premise synodality would not be a problem or an issue ).
- Archbishop Viganò: “But if at the time it could be difficult to think that a religious liberty condemned by Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) could be affirmed by Dignitatis Humanae, or that the Roman Pontiff could see his authority usurped by a phantom episcopal college, today we understand that what was cleverly concealed in Vatican II is today affirmed ore rotundo in papal documents precisely in the name of the coherent application of the Council.” (10)
- (There can also be a traditional interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae. Fr. Brian Harrison and Louie Verrecchio among others have interpreted DH in harmony with Tradition. )
- Archbishop Viganò: “We can thus affirm that the spirit of the Council is the Council itself, that the errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts, just as it is rightly said that the Novus Ordo is the Mass of the Council, even if in the presence of the Council Fathers the Mass was celebrated that the progressives significantly call pre-conciliar.” (11)
- (Those who discern would see the use of the false premise here, to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally ).
- Bishop Schneider: “For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: ‘The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.’” (12)
- (Without the false premise Vatican Council II and DH would affirm the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus .Based upon EENS we can affirm the necessity of the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King. )
We have taken note of the differences you have highlighted between the solutions each of you has proposed for responding to the crisis precipitated at and following the Second Vatican Council. For example, Archbishop Viganò has argued it would be better to altogether “forget” the Council, while Bishop Schneider, disagreeing with him on this specific point, proposes officially to correct only those parts of the Council documents that contain errors or that are ambiguous. Your courteous and respectful exchange of opinions should serve as a model for the more robust debate that you and we desire. Too often these past fifty years disagreements about Vatican II have been challenged by mere ad hominem attacks rather than calm argumentation. We urge all who will join this debate to follow your example.
(When Vatican Council II is interpreted without the false premise it supports Tradition and so does not have to be rejected. It is then the liberals who will want to reject Vatican Council II.)
-Lionel Andrades
(When Vatican Council II is interpreted without the false premise it supports Tradition and so does not have to be rejected. It is then the liberals who will want to reject Vatican Council II.)
-Lionel Andrades
We pray that Our Blessed Mother, St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, St. Athanasius, and St. Thomas Aquinas protect and preserve your Excellencies. May they reward you for your faithfulness to the Church and confirm you in your defense of the Faith and of the Church.
In Christo Rege, (signed)
________________________
________________________
1
Michael Sean Winters still quotes Jesuit Fr. Jared Wicks who interpreted Vatican Council II with the irrational premise, false inference and non traditional conclusion
Actually, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop in Kazakhstan, might follow Viganò as Magister goes on to demonstrate. Schneider has also called for corrections in certain documents of Vatican II, specifically those that can be seen as the texts that corrected the Syllabus of Errors: Dignitatis humanae and Nostra aetate. These were the texts that caused Archbishop Michel Lefebvre to go into schism, and they continue to cause consternation for those who are dipping their toes into the schismatic waters. (For more on this issue, see my two-part review of Jesuit Fr. Jared Wicks' book Investigating Vatican II here and here.) - Michael Sean Winters,Who still stands with Viganò?
Even after being informed Michael Sean Winters continues with the propaganda on Vatican Council II. Fr. Jared Wicks sj interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there had to be a rupture with Catholic Tradition.
Secondly Winters mentions that Congard, Rahner and other liberals were present at Vatican Council II and so he implies that the Council is liberal.But even with the presence of Congar etc, the Council can be interpreted without the false premise and there will be no rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century.
If Winters does not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS.
So in his latest report he continues to quote Fr. Jared Wicks and ignores the false premise being used deceptively to project Vatican Council II as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
He is still lucky that Archbishop Carlo Vigano makes the same error as him.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/who-still-stands-vigan
_______________________________
_______________________________
JULY 18, 2020
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
The National Catholic Reporter cannot keep posting reviews of books on Vatican Council II, in which the authors make the same mistake ( Graphics )
-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
The National Catholic Reporter reviews of the books by Fr. Jared Wicks sj and Prof. Paul Lakeland on Vatican Council II were flawed. The authors made a mistake ( Graphics) https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-national-catholic-reporter-reviews.html
__________________________________________
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
The National Catholic Reporter's reviews of the books by Fr. Jared Wicks sj and Prof. Paul Lakeland on Vatican Council II, were flawed.The authors had made a mistake. Vatican Council II was interpreted by them with false reasoning.The NCR must admit it. Both authors read the Council superficially.Then they assumed hypothetical cases were objective exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is irrational. So the authors conclusions and those of the editors and correspondents of the NCR were irrational, non traditional and an artifical rupture with Catholic theology and doctrines on salvation etc.
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
Massimo Faggioli and Michael Sean Winters liberalism was based on an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.The National Catholic Reporter had two books reviewed, which interpreted Vatican Council II with the superficial and false reasoning.The books were authored by Paul Lakeland and Fr. Jared Wicks sj.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/massimo-faggiolis-and-michael-sean.html
AUGUST 8, 2018
OCTOBER 31, 2019
There are no arguements to support exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument
OCTOBER 31, 2019
EWTN's Tragic Errors of Leonard Feeney by Fr. William Most present arguments which cannot be practical exceptions to EENS, they cannot violate Newton's Laws of Physics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
