Archbishop Victor Manuel
Fernandez has said that there can be different theologies and theological debates.
Pope Benedict would say the same as he would welcome Fr. Hans Kung’s
interpretation of Vatican Council II (irrational) and the liberal conclusions
which would follow. Pope Francis also interpreted Vatican Council II
irrationally to support Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode. Cardinal
Walter Kasper has said that if Vatican Council II (irrational) could change the
ecclesiology of the Catholic Church then why could not the Eucharist be given
at Mass to the divorced and remarried.
But when they interpret
Vatican Council II irrationally, it originally is a philosophical error. It is an error in
observation. It is an objective error. It is something empirical. Later, based
upon this verifiable and historical error, they create a New Theology which
says outside the Church there is salvation; there is known salvation.There is visible salvation.
So cardinal-designate
Victor Manuel Fernandez is making a philosophical error on Vatican Council II.
The original error is not theology but philosophy.
For him invisible cases in
2023 of being saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14) and in invincible ignorance
(LG 16) are visible cases. So for him LG 14 and LG 16 refer to visible non
Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water.
For me, LG 14 and LG 16
refer to invisible cases in 2023. This is my premise, which is different from
his. This is my philosophical observation which is different from his. People
who are not there for me are there for him. Someone who is invisible for me is
visible for him.
Then his inference is that
LG 14 and LG 16 being visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 2023, are objective exceptions for the strict, traditional interpretation of the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So the Athanasius Creed has been made
obsolete. Not everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for
salvation.
My inference is that LG 14
and LG 16 refer to invisible cases always, so they are not exceptions for the
dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. So Vatican Council II does not contradict
the Old Theology of the Church, which was exclusivist on salvation. There is no
New Theology created with Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally i.e.
invisible cases of LG 8,14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not practical
exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. They do not contradict
the past exclusivist ecclesiology for me.They do not exist in our human reality. The Council (rational), is Magisterial, and in
harmony with Tradition. There is no hermeneutic of rupture with the Syllabus of
Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. The Council supports the dogma EENS in
Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846
etc) also supports the dogma EENS, when the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are interpreted rationally i.e there is no confusion between what is invisible and visible.
So our philosophical
observations are different and so also our theologies will be different.
A theology has to be Catholic and rational. There cannot be a rupture between faith and reason. Archbishop Fernandez is deceptive and unethical with his philosophical observation. Even a non Christian would agree that we cannot see a person saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc. This is in the realm of common sense.It is common knowledge that if someone is saved and he or she is in Heaven it can only be known to God.
No one saw a St. Emerentina in Heaven without the baptism of water.No one saw Dismas ( the Good Thief) in Heaven without the baptism of water and anyway no one can name a Dismas today ( 2023).
The doctrine chief along with the traditionalists and progressivists, whom he refers to, is making a philosophical mistake and creating a new liberal theology. He has a rational and ethical choice which would make his orthodox and a Feeneyite.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2023
The discovery
The discovery
We have a discovery today. It’s ‘a small point’ but this small point turns the Council around. From liberalism the Council returns to Tradition. So by ignoring this small point, we have liberalism in the Church. This small point, is the premise: the rational and irrational premise. It decides if Vatican Council II has a continuity or break with Tradition. This is the discovery. We now have a switch. We can turn it off or on. We can choose a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors or a rupture with Tradition. -Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
former Staff Reporter, daily Morning News, Karachi, Pakistan.
Recipient of the All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) Best Reporter of the Year Award, presented by the Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto.
Recipient of the Pakistan Government's Award for Literature ( Childrens stories).
Teacher of English and Church History at the Catholic Minor Seminary, Rawalpindi.
Bishop Anthony Lobo
Sent to Rome for Ministerial Priesthood by Bishop Anthony Lobo, bishop of Rawalpindi-Islamabad, Pakistan.
Discriminated against by the pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome.He interprets Vatican Council II rationally and not irrationally. So there is a continuity with Tradition. He is not allowed to study at pontifical universities in Rome, where it is obligatory to interpret Magisterial Documents, irrationally and unethically.Catholic students and seminarians are discriminated against. This is public and official.
However we have a new discovery in the Catholic Church. There are 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, when it is interpreted rationally i.e LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases. So they are not objective examples of salvation. They are not objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.The Creeds must not be changed.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version of the Creeds, Catechisms and Councils, which is heretical, non-traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
It is unethical when the popes, cardinals and bishops choose the Irrational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents and call it Catholic.
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Balthazar, Kung, Lefebvre and Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally. We can today choose to interpret the Council rationally and in harmony with Tradition.
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/
Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment