Michael Voris quotes Cardinal Walter Kaspar on ambigous statements(1) being there in Vatican Council. There is the text of the majority along with new definitions it is said.However in looking at this text superficially, Michael Voris and Louie Verrechio are both using the Cushing interpretation of Vatican Council II.
They are assuming that in principle statements, acceptable as probabilities,are explicitly known in the present times. Then they assume that these statements contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.So this causes the ambiguity.
It is based on this ambiguity that we have the common liberalism of the Jesuits...
With Feeneyism as an interpretation of Vatican Council II those same statements which are there in the Council do not contradict Tradition. There is no ambiguity.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Walter Kaspar are interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. It claims that the dead now saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church, good and holy things in other religions etc are physically visible to us in 2013 and so are defacto exceptions to Tradition.
With Cushingism we have a hermenutic of rupture. With Feeneyism we have the hermeneutic of continuity.
With Cushingism we have heresy. With Feeneyism we have a continuity with the Deposit of the Faith. Visible baptism of desire is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Invisible-for- us baptism of desire is probable,rational and acceptable.
Michael Voris and Louie Verrechio could analyse Vatican Council II with Cushingism and Feeneyism. It's simple.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
(10:20)
Catholic magisterial documents can be interpreted according to Feeneyism or Cushingism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/08/catholic-magisterial-ocuments-can-be.html#links
Posts
4 comments:
Lionel,
Thanks for all the Michael Voris video references. There is no doubt Michael loves his Catholic faith. I am not sure that I agree that he thinks that VCII is a rupture in itself but that the infiltration by the likes of Cardinal Cushing, John Courtney Murray and the countless other modernists that undermined the Council. All in all the Holy Father along with each and every Catholic are responsible for helping to restore the faith.
JMJ,
George Brenner
I am not sure that I agree that he thinks that VCII is a rupture in itself but that the infiltration by the likes of Cardinal Cushing, John Courtney Murray and the countless other modernists that undermined the Council.
Lionel:
Yes he thinks Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past since he thinks the Council is ambigous.
He has accepted the interpretation of the Council according to Cardinal Richard Cushing, John Courtney Murray and the others.
He also does not seem to know that he has a choice.
He does not seem to know that if he does not use the premise of the visible dead, the Council is not a break with the past, on other religions and Christians communities and churches.
Lionel said:
I am not sure that I agree that he thinks that VCII is a rupture in itself but that the infiltration by the likes of Cardinal Cushing, John Courtney Murray and the countless other modernists that undermined the Council.
George: Michael Voris went to Notre Dame, the same city in which I have lived for practically all of my life. Hopefully the next time he is in town he can be asked the questions that you pose.
JMJ,
George
I am not sure that I agree that he thinks that VCII is a rupture in itself
Lionel:
George he does think that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past since he says it is ambigous.The Council is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.
AG 7 and LG 14 interpreted with Feeneyism and not Cushingism affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no known exceptions mentioned in AG 7 or LG 14 or other texts of Vatican Council II.
Post a Comment