Sacrosanctum Concilium is not a modernist
minefield unless you are using the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council
II, like Don Pietro Leone, Pope Paul VI, Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Anthony
Cekada and other sedevacantists.
To change the liturgy there must also be a change in theology.The liturgy cannot be changed in thin air.
Theology was changed long before Vatican Council
II with the False Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which the
Council Fathers accepted in 1965.
So with there being alleged known salvation
outside the Church the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) was made obsolete. It
was the end for the Syllabus of Errors. The popes accepted that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were physically visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This was irrational and heretical. It was schismatic and could not be magisterial.
So everything was open to change. This was
Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise, by the liberals and
traditionalists.
Now we know that we can interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG
16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being only hypothetical and
invisible cases in 2022. So they are not objective exceptions for the Syllabus
of Errors. There is no change in the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
So there is no theological opening for the New Ecumenism , New Ecclesiology,
New Canon Law and New Liturgy. We are back to the past theology. Sicne the Council does not mention any 'exceptions'.
So irrespective if the Mass is in the vernacular,
Latin or Greek, the liturgy can still be the same if the Rational Premise is
used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Fr. Cekada did not know this. He wrote his books interpreting
Vatican Council II with the False Premise, created a false break with the past
ecclesiology and then he blamed the Council.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this. He could
have interpreted the Council with the Rational Premise and there would be no
change in the ecclesiology of the Church.The Council would be traditional.
The SSPX bishops still do not know this since
they did not object when Traditions Custode called for the interpretation of
Vatican Council II with the False and not the Rational Premise.
If the Ecclesia
Dei communities would interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational
Premise they could offer the Latin Mass with the past exclusivist
ecclesiology of the 16th century.
Similarly the USCCB bishops can offer Holy Mass
in English and the theology would be the same as in the past.
Catholics have a choice. Why should we interpret
Vatican Council II like Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeili (web blog) and Joseph Shaw?
They do not want to affirm Vatican Council II (Rational) since then they would
have to get back to Tradition and this could upset their interests. The Left
would oppose them.
So Don Pietro Leone continues to interpret
Vatican Council II like the liberals since it is politically correct and no one
is threatened.
i)‘With the
passage of time…certain features have crept into the rites of the sacraments
and sacramentals which have made their nature and purpose less clear to the
people of to-day. Hence some changes are necessary to adapt them to present-day
needs…’ (SC 62); Sacrosanctum
Concilium
ii) ‘The
rite for the Baptism of infants is to be revised. The revision should take into
account the fact that those to be baptized are babies…’ (SC 67);
iii) ‘In
mission countries… those elements of initiation may be admitted… insofar as
they can be adapted to the Christian ritual...’ (SC 65);
iv) ‘The rite
of confirmation is to be revised also so that the intimate connection of this
sacrament with the whole of Christian initiation may be shown more clearly…’ (SC
71);
v) ‘Extreme
Unction’ which may also and more fittingly be called ‘Anointing of the Sick’ is
not a sacrament for those who are at the point of death. Hence it is certain
that as soon as any of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from
sickness or old age, this is already a suitable time for them to receive this
sacrament.’ (SC 73);
Changes could be made since the traditionalists
too were interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise like the
liberals. The liberals were citing Vatican Council II ( Irrational) to justify changes. The traditionalists could say nothing.Since they were not aware
of Vatican Council II ( Rational) as an alternative. -Lionel Andrades
The Council and the Eclipse of God – by Don
Pietro Leone : CHAPTER VII –Man’s Cult of God - Sacrosanctum Concilium: a
veritable modernist minefield
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-by-don.html#more
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
No comments:
Post a Comment