Archbishop Carlo Vigano, Maike Hickson, Diana Montagna and Roberto dei Mattei want to continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, and avoid the rational premise, and so not be accused of being extremists by the Left and the Vatican.
They also want to affirm Magisterial documents without Feeneyism (invisible cases are invisible) and instead with irrational Cushingism ( invisible cases must be projected as being visible).The popes and the liberals only knew of Cushingism.
We can affirm Mystici Corporis, or the Four Marks of the Church or all the Catechisms with Cushingism(EENS with exceptions) or Feeneyism( EENS with no exceptions) and the conclusion will be different
The Lefebvrists are not traditionalists when they interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and all the Creeds with a fake premise, like the liberals, to create a rupture with Tradition( EENS according to the popes and saints who did not project the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as objective exceptions to EENS).
Pope Francis also interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, like Archbishop Vigano, but considers the interpretation and conclusion, Magisterial.No one is tellling Pope Francis and Pope Benedict that only with the rational premise, the Council will be not be in heresy or in schism with the past Magisterium.It will not be a break with Tradition(EENS etc) and so be Magisterial.
A Council interpreted with a false premise to create a non traditional, heretical and schismatic conclusion cannot be Magisterial.
Archbishop Vigano has to realize that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) is responsible for the New Theology in the Catholic Church.The New Theology suggests that outside the Church there is salvation, since there exists known practical exceptions to EENS etc.The LOHO confused unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as known and physically visible exceptions to EENS.This was an objective mistake.A person saved outside the Church is not visible on earth and also in Heaven, at the same time.This would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the LOHO which made an principle-mistake. The same error in reasoning was applied to Vatican Council II by Archbishop Lefebvre(invisible cases of LG 16 are visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS). So he rejected the Council as being heretical.It was his error, really, since he was looking at the Council with the New Theology, the error of LOHO.He could have avoided the invisible-visible confusion.
I also read the Council-text but I avoid this error.
Maike Hickson is to produce another politically correct book on Vatican Council II, composed of the writings of Archbishop Vigano.There will be no opposition from the Left. Since they too interpret the Council with the false premise, like Archbishop Vigano and Maike Hickson but need the rupture with Tradition.-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 17, 2021
Archbishop Carlo Vigano in his latest interview on Life Site News continues to repeat the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise is not a rupture with Tradition.Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this.The Council has a hermeneutic of continuity with the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, both interpreted rationally.
Archbishop Carlo Vigano in his latest interview on Life Site News continues to repeat the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise is not a rupture with Tradition.Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this.The Council has a hermeneutic of continuity with the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, both interpreted rationally. -Lionel Andrades
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/in-new-interview-abp-vigano-discusses-failure-of-vatican-ii-novus-ordo-mass
_________________________
JUNE 11, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment