Robert Fastiggi, a professor of theology at the leftist Sacred
Heart Major Seminary, Detroit knows that Vatican Council II could be
interpreted with a Rational Premise and then the Council will support the
traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church approved by the
past Magisterium.
But he chooses to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 referring to exceptions to EENS etc, to create a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed. He remains politically with his Rector who allows him to teach theology.
The Rector of the seminary in
Detroit checks other Catholic Universities in the USA if the professors are
Cushingite or Feeneyite.The bishops want only Cushingites.
This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit but Fastiggi needs to
continue with the deception to keep his teaching job.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican
Council II refer to only hypothetical cases. So the Council does not contradict
extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It
affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and the baptism of water for
salvation. All. This is written in the text and it is repeated in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church 846 ( Outside the Church there is no salvation).So for me Vatican Council II is dogmatic . It supports the exclusivist ecclesiology of the 16th century missionaries irrespective if Kung and Congar were present at the Council and irrespective of what was the voting pattern.
We can interpret the Council with the Rational Premise and we are back to Tradition.
If Robert Fastiggi is writing another article or a book on Vatican Council II he should not use the False Premise to interpret the Council and so produce an artificial break with Tradition.
This was the mistake of Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Catholics are not obliged to follow this deception and that of the Curia in the Archdiocese of Detroit.
The interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican is also irrational, private and political. Catholics who follow the CDF ecclesiastics in their error will be supporting mortal sins of faith. They interpret the Creeds and EENS with the Cushingite premise.
The meeting of liberals Robert Mohniyan and Robert Fastiggi with the traditionalists Dr.Julio Loredo and Jose Antonio Ureta shows how there can be unity among the liberal and conservatives when he False Premise is used. They are approved by the Left. Since the traditional politically incorrect ecclesiocenterism is put aside by both groups.
They are promoting mortal sins of faith in public. Plinio Correa de Oliveira was a Cushingite, who used the False Premise instead of the Rational Premise. So like Archbishop Lefebvre, in a sense, he is irrelevant today.
What they both did or did not do at Vatican Council II is meaningless when we know that the Council today is dogmatic with the Rational Premise.
So it was a hypocritical discussion for some of the participants who knew that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with the Rational Premise.
Yes there was a theological paradigm shift in the Catholic Church with Vatican Council II because of the False Premise which went un-detected by all.Now we simply avoid the False Premise and we undo all their bad work. There is no more a paradigm shift in the Catholic Church. We return to the old theology which can only be accompanied with the old doctrines.
So at the German and other Synods they will have no choice but to go back to Tradition or continue to interpret the Council irrationally and deceptively. It would of course not be Catholic. -Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise and not the Rational Premise and contributed towards the theological paradigm shift
I missed the first part of the discussion and arrived about a an hour late. I was fortunate to listen to them as things worked out this evening for me.
Dr. Robert Fastiggi who teaches at the leftist and liberal Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, USA said that some theologians showed that they were not with the mind of the Church,like Fr. Hans Kung and there were others like Yves Congar who were not modernists but represented a certain mind set.Fastiggi said that he follows the opinion that the Holy Spirit would protect the Council from grave error and heresy.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider remarked that we have to distinguish between heresy and error. Theological error is not a heresy.It can be corrected with the ordinary pronouncement of a pope.He agreed with Dr. Fastiggi that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope so the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church today.But for Bishop Schneider there were rare cases in which there were errors, example as in the case of Pope Liberius. Now there are the errors of Pope Francis he observed. Though he did not think that Pope Francis was in heresy.
For Bishop Schneider there are expressions in Dominus Iesus which undermine Church teachings. He called for clear doctrinal statements.
He hoped that there will be a pope and a Council to clarify all the ambiguities of Vatican Council II and the pronouncements of the popes after the Council. We have to preserve the integrity of the faith.
The Church must transmit the clarity and purity of the faith for the next generations to come, said Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Even though there is confusion today the Catholic Church will return to its beauty and splendor he believed. We have confidence that Christ is winning and all is in his hands.
Dr.Julio Loredo and Jose Antonio Ureta spoke about Prof. Plinio Correira D'Oliveira and his work and his denunciation of modernist ideas being introduced.
Jose Antonio Ureta is the author of the book Pope Francis Paradigm Shift Continuity or Rupture.He said that it was noticed at the time of Vatican Council II that collegiality was introducing new doctrines.The present Synods he said are an example of that collegiality.
For Robert Mohniyan there could be a development of doctrine but we cannot have a new Church with new doctrines. Bishop Schneider agreed with him on this point.
Bishop Schneider agreed with him.We cannot speak of a new Church or Conciliar Church since Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
All the speakers did not mention that Vatican Council II today can be interpreted in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. Irrespective of who was present at Vatican Council II and what was the voting pattern.
A.The Holy Spirit cannot want us to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14,LG16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to physically visible, personally known and objective people in 1965-2021 who were saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and the baptism of water.Yet this is the common error today.
It is also common sense that LG 8 etc cannot be practical cases since they are only known to God.This confusion was not there in the Church before the 1930's.But the liberals and traditionalists like the popes interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 as referring to visible cases who are practical exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology.This cannot be Magisterial.
B.So if the Holy Spirit wants us to be rational then we have to interpret LG 8,LG 14,LG 16 etc as being hypothetical and theoretical only.This would mean that there are no practical exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council is then dogmatic.It is in harmony with the past ecclesiocentrism.There is no break between faith and reason.
But the popes from Paul VI chose A and this could not be the work of the Holy Spirit.Also Robert Fastiggi and Robert Mohniyan choose the irrational interpretation of the Council and consider it the work of the Holy Spirit.
How can we say that we are still in the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church when the popes today say outside the Church there is salvation ( based on a False Premise) and the popes of the past said outside the Church there is no salvation ?.Theologically this was creating a new Church. This was the real paradigm shift.
It was not mentioned that Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise and not the Rational Premise.
With Vatican Council II Feeneyite, interpreted with the Rational Premise collegiality is not an issue. Since collegiality will have to be traditional at future synods.-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
Coetus Internationalis Patrum were and are Cushingites.They are politically correct with the liberals.
"Coetus internationalis Patrum. The other side of Vatican II". Streaming november 12, 4pm
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment