Timothy Flanders calls for unity in the Church on three
points,on which the liberals and Masons will also agree with him. They are 1)
accepting Pope Francis as the pope 2) accepting the Second Vatican Council II
and 2) accepting Mass in the vernacular.I would agree with him on all three
points with qualifications.The most important being what is a sin and what is
not?
Pope Francis is the pope but when he interprets Magisterial
documents with a false premise.This is a sin. It is not a sin if he uses the
rational premise and so remains Magisterial.With the false premise, like it is
for any Catholic, he remains schismatic and heretical.
I go for Mass in Italian but since I interpret Magisterial
documents with the rational premise my ecclesiology is exclusivist and like
that of the missionaries in the 16th century. There is no New Theology, New
Ecumenism and New Evangelisation for me. These are sins of faith based upon the
false premise. They are heretical and schismatic.
We cannot ‘unite the clans’ with Cushingite theology based upon
a false premise.This results in schism with the past Magisterium on EENS, the
Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions etc.
The Novus Ordo Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus re-enacted in an
un-bloody way, for me.
Archbishop Lefebvre made an objective mistake in the
interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents. Why
should Catholics follow him? It is the same error of the liberals and Masons.
He interpreted LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II
as exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. This was his
mistake. Why should I interpret them as being exceptions? This would be
irrational.This is the New Theology of the liberals.
Bishop Bernard Fellay has often interpreted Vatican Council II
in this irrational way and then projected the Council as a rupture with
Tradition.Why should I do the same?
The Council interpreted with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc being only
hypothetical , does not contradict traditional EENS.The Council then becomes
dogmatic and ecclesiocentric.It is in harmony with Tradition.Then collegiality, religious liberty, synodality and
inter-religious dialogue is constant and not a rupture with the past.We are looking at Vatican Council II differently.We can choose not to read the Council like Archbishop Lefebvre.
Catholics today have an alternative. We can affirm EENS and
Vatican Council II unlike Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. We can choose to avoid the
False Premise and the New Theology.
Finally the issue is what is a sin? Can you interpret the Creeds
with a false premise? Can you change the interpretation of EENS by interpreting
the baptism of desire etc with a false premise ?-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment