In the
United Kingdom the English bishops’ conference and the Latin Mass Society are
both interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally to create a break with
Tradition. If they interpreted the Council rationally there would no more be exceptions
for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
In Austria
the St. Boniface Institute and the Austrian bishops and Cardinal Schonborn are
doing the same.
In France
the French Bishops Conference and the Ecclesia dei communities are doing the
same.They all use the same irrational Premise and Inference to interpret
Vatican Council II and produce a nontraditional conclusion.
For me LG 8,
LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases in the present times
and so they cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They
are not objective exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology.
But Pope
Pius XII approved the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It assumed invisible
cases of being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) and the baptism of desire(BOD) are visible
exceptions for traditional exclusive salvation in the Church. This mistake was
over looked by the Popes. Even at Vatican Council II (1965) Pope Paul VI did
not interpret LG 8, LG 14; LG 16 etc as referring to invisible cases.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the same mistake. The SSPX bishops today like
Pope Francis make the same mistake.
I interpret
LG 8 etc as being only hypothetical. So I do not have to reject BOD and
I.I. I simply do not project them as being practical exceptions for EENS
according to the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16 the century.- Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment