Bishop Robert Barron is as obsolete as Archbishop Lefebvre on Vatican Council II. This is not observed by Massimo Faggioli whose books on the Council were written with the same false premise, inference and rational conclusion, common among the liberals and Lefebvrists

 

Bishop Robert Barron is as obsolete as Archbishop Lefebvre on Vatican Council II. This is not observed by Massimo Faggioli whose books on the Council were written with the same false premise, inference and rational conclusion, common among the liberals and Lefebvrists.

There is a commentary on Bishop Barron's book on Vatican Council II, for the National Catholic Reporter, by Massimo Faggioli.Faggioli does not mention that without the false premise the Council is not a break with Tradition. So there would be no traditional-progressivist division.

Also Vatican Council II would no more be an issue for the 'rad trads'.Since without the false premise in the interpretation of the Council, Barron and Faggioli would be affirming Tradition.Their would be no theological basis for their progressivism.

We no more have to be 'anti-Vatican Council II'. We simply avoid the false premise and the Council is traditional.

We now know how to switch the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture, on or off, at will.We have discovered the secret.

 So even the  Wojtyla-Ratzinger interpretation of the council is obsolete. It does not have a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

When the Council does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS, religious liberty,like ecumenism is no more a controversial issue.There can be no New Ecumenism for Faggioli and Barron, when the Council is interpreted with the rational premise and inference and the conclusion emerges traditional.Sicne then there would be no known salvation outside the Church. There would be no known exceptions to exclusive salvation in the Church.

 At the same time, Levering also tries to highlight the continuity between Dignitatis Humanae, the Vatican II document on religious freedom, which is not published in the volume, and the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX (1864), which denied religious liberty to non-Catholics (among other things).

The Syllabus of Errors refers to a Catholic Confessional State, when the teaching can be implemented. It could refer to a secular state in which the Catholic theology, for Catholics, is ecclesiocentric.The priority would be faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.Since outside the Church there would be no salvation, as taught by Vatican Council, interpreted rationally.

Vatican Council II does not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, which was the theological basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King.The priority would be a Catholic Confessional State. There would be no  separation of Church and the Catholic State. This is another way of looking at the religious liberty issue.

For example, a quotation from Cardinal Robert Sarah explains that the polemical target of this operation is not really a defense of Vatican II, but a defense of an idea of Catholic doctrine as absence of change: "Those who make sensational announcements of change and rupture are false prophets. They do not seek the good of the flock. They are mercenaries who have been smuggled into the sheepfold. Our unity will be forged around the truth of Catholic doctrine. There are no other means."

Precisely.There are no new doctrines when we are back to the old ecclesiology,without throwing out Vatican Council II.So we can affirm 16th century EENS and also Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally.

It is also misleading to say that "the same magisterium that gave us the ecumenical council of Vatican II also gave us Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio [Summorum Pontificum on the 'traditional Latin Mass']," almost implying that the teaching of a general council like Vatican II and the motu proprio of a pope are on the same level of authority.

Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise is not Magisterial. There is no new revelation in the Church to suggest that the Holy Spirit wants a break with the past Magisterium.There cannot be a new revelation created with a fake premise.

So only when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally and in harmony with the past Magisterium, it is non schismatic and is Magisterial today.Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise is heretical. It contradicts the Athanasius Creed etc.It is not Magisterial.

A book like this tries, with commendable courage, to take a stand against radical traditionalists (finally!). But at the same time, it functions as a symptom of the crisis that made "rad-trads" emerge in the first place

The book has not dealt with the issue of  Vatican Council II interpreted with or without the false premise.So there could be two interpretations of Lumen Gentium 16.

Word on Fire has been informed about their error,many times. There is no comment or denial. Bishop Barron received the Templeton Foundation grant since he interpreted the Council with the false premise. There is no apology.He continues with the deception.If Bishop Barron interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise and announced it in public 'the rad trads' would welcome the decision.He would be one of them.-Lionel Andrades

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/bishop-robert-barrons-beige-version-vatican-ii