from Rorate Caeili
I want to recommend four books in particular that relate to my theme.
Lionel's blog
from Rorate Caeili
I want to recommend four books in particular that relate to my theme.
from Rorate Caeili
Similarly, the fifteenth-century Council of Constance (1414–1418) “pronounced about the pope as the first person in the Church who is bound by the Faith and who must scrupulously guard the integrity of the Faith”[12]:
Since the Roman Pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by the rites that are to be observed regarding the Church’s Sacraments.
I, N., elected pope, with both heart and mouth confess and profess to almighty God, whose Church I undertake with his assistance to govern, and to blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, that as long as I am in this fragile life I will firmly believe and hold the Catholic Faith, according to the traditions of the apostles, of the general councils and of other holy fathers . . . and I will preserve this Faith unchanged to the last dot and will confirm, defend, and preach it to the point of death and the shedding of my blood, and likewise I will follow and observe in every way the handed-down rite of the ecclesiastical sacraments of the Catholic Church.[13]-Peter Kwasniewski
bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith
This line could be debated. Since 'the faith' for Pope Francis and Peter Kwasniewski is same but also different from the faith of the past Magisterium.
Pope Francis has cited the interpretation of Vatican Council II for putting restrictions on the Latin Mass. This has not been disputed by Kwasniewski. He interprets Vatican Council II just like Pope Francis, with the irrational premise. The pope considers this interpretation of the Council traditional.
He considers it Magisterial and the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the only interpretation of the Council for him and Kwasniewski.
So the pope could say that he has not prohibited the Sacraments but is only making it available for those who interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. Even for Kwasniewski the Council is a break with Tradition. This is official and ecclesiastical.
So for Pope Francis he is not rejecting Tradition, the faith and the sacraments with Traditionis Custode.
Now if Kwasneiwski said that he does not accept Pope Francis's interpretation of Vatican Council II this would be different. He would be saying that the pope's interpretation of the Council is irrational and so also non Magisterial.
But Kwasniewski is not saying this.
I repeat : he does not say that Pope Francis' interpretation is irrational and so non Magisterial and it is schismatic and non traditional and so this makes Traditionis Custode disputable.
So Vatican Council II(irrational), which can also be interpreted rationally, is no theological or doctrinal basis for placing controls on only the Latin Mass. Since Vatican Council II interpreted with the rational premise would not be in conflict with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and it would be there even at the Novus Ordo Mass.Vatican Council II supporting the past exclusivist ecclesiology would also be there at the Novus Ordo Mass.
Kwasniewski, like the SSPX and the SSPX supporters do not want to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise and so affirm the Athanasius Creed ( with no exceptions), the Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions and 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, not being practical exceptions.He does not want this 'faith'.
He wants to continue to interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally, like Joseph Shaw, since it is politically correct with the Left and he would continue to bow to the powers of this world.
In his Notes Kwasniewski cites the book of Pope Benedict in which he says that Jews do not need to convert in the present times.
Then he cites Fr. Cekada for whom the baptism of desire refers to visible cases in the present times. He then projects this as a practical exception to Feeneyite EENS. The same as the liberals and the present two popes. This is tradition and the 'faith' for Cekada.
-Lionel Andrades
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html#comment-form
Archbishop
Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement on Vatican Council
II. He interpreted the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and
Associated Press and of course the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation
of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version.
If
the editors of his book, Brian McCall and Maike Hickson, used the TWO COLUMN
approach to view Vatican Council II, they would cease to be Lefebvrists like
Vigano.
If
the interpreted Vatican Council II with the RATIONAL PREMISE, RATIONAL
INFERENCE AND TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION, they would emerge Feeneyites on extra
ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed( Feeneyite-with no
exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Feeneyite-with no known
exceptions).
But
they have to follow Archbishop Carlo Vigano's approach to Vatican Council
II which is also that of Cardinal Claudio Hummes when he offers Holy Mass in
Brazil, in the language of the Amazonians, and he will interpret the Council,
with the fake premise to reject the First Commandment,’thou shalt have no other
God beside me’.
This
will also be the approach of Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi at the Sacred Heart
Major seminary, Detroit, USA and Scott Hahn and Alan Schreck at the Theology
Department of the University of Steubenville, USA.They will be at Mass in
Engish without the past exclusivist ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is
interpreted with the fake premise, creating a New Theology, which says outside
the Church there is salvation, even among those who do not know or do not
believe in Jesus Christ.
Scott
Hahn, Alan Schreck, Robert Fastiggi and Ralph Martin have decided not to
discuss this issue since they are obliged to teach Vatican Council II
interpreted with the fake reasoning.
It’s
a political interpretation of the Council which creates schism with the past
Magisterium and the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Cardinal
Hummes, like Vigano, is not telling the Brazilian Catholics, that there is true
worship in only the Catholic Church when Vatican Council II is interpeted
rationally.
At
the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with the fake premise and
concluded that there is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He
criticized the SSPX for beleiving that outside
the Church there is no salvation, since, he said, that they do not
accept Vatican Council II. He was referring to Vatican Council II interpreted
with the fake premise.
The
SSPX also interprets the Council with the fake premise, like Cardinal Hummes, but
then rejects the non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre did the same.
So
the FSSP, at Dijon, France, made of the same cloth will not affirm Vatican
Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and
tell Bishop Minnerath, that he is wrong in his writings to support a ‘theology
of religious pluralism’ . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church
according to Vatican Council II. There are no personally known non Catholics
saved outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2021.Practically also, we cannot meet
any such person.So how can the bishop propose a theology of religions when
there is no known salvation outside the Church to contradit Feeneyite EENS ?
The theology of religions which is the subject of some of his books was
condemned by Pope John Paul II ( Notification, CDF, Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj,
2001).
Archbishop Vigano and the SSPX supporters have never responded to so many reports on this blog over a long time, which refers to them. Well, what are they going to say? That they interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Davies ?
The Times of Israel will object.-Lionel Andrades