Tuesday, November 11, 2014

It is my right ( and yours too) to not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do the Bologna School



I have received an e-mail from a priest.


Dear Father...,
"So the Council will be projected as a break with Tradition when really it is the opposite"

Lionel: 
When a premise is used in the interpretation the Council becomes a break with Tradition when the premise is avoided the Council is in agreement with Tradition.I seem to be the only one interpreting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.
We wait that you prove it ! The reality of the Catholic Church in Europe is just showing us that the Concil Vat. II is a break and that Card. Ratzinger qualified the Concil Vat. II as UN ANTI-SYLLABUS.

Lionel: 
True they are interpreting Vatican Council II with a premise.
For example they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those who are saved in invincible ignorance.These cases are allegedly saved without the baptism of water and  are allegedly visible on earth to be explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. So the conclusion for them is that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.

For me, Lionel, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a possibility known only to God.It is a hypothtical case for me. Hypothetical , theoretical cases cannot be de facto exceptions in 2014 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. We cannot see or meet these theoretical cases.So LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would have to be visible to be an exception. Invisible cases are not exceptions. So Vatican Council II becomes traditional for me.

For people in general UR 3,NA 3,LG 8 etc refer to visible in the flesh cases in 2014. This is irrational. To assume that the dead -saved as such are visible on earth, is an irrationality. This is the false premise used by the SSPX and Cardinal Kaspar in the interpretation of the Council. Any Church document interpreted with this irrational premise ( the visible dead theory) will result in a break with reason and the past.

For me these cases are not explicit and known in personal cases. So they are irrelevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

 The Theological School of Bologna always qualified this same Concil as A BREAK and A NEW START. Well ! You don't agree with Card. Ratzinger and the School of Bologna, it's your right.

Lionel:
 It is my right ( and yours too) to not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do the Bologna School.
Pretending that the Concil of Vatican II didn't bring many BREAKS and RUPTURES in the catholic theology is just incorrect.
Lionel:
 I accept that for people in general  Vatican Council II is a break with the past. One does not have to be a theologian to observe this. 
However I know the cause of the break with tradition and I avoid it. You are still not aware of the precise cause.
 What about: Oecumenism, Religious freedom, Collegiality, Relation with Judaism and so on ? Well if you don't agree that there are RUPTURES on this points it's your choise but all qualified catholic theologians confirm this BREAKS in the catholic theology.
Lionel: 
All the theologians are using an irrational premise which has come to us from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in real life.Then they concluded that these visible cases ( though dead) are physically seen and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Ghosts are visible exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. So they concluded that there is salvation outside the Church. 
This error can be seen in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without baptism'. 
Are you pretending too that many topics of the last Synod for the Family wasn't A BREAK with the traditional theology of the Catholic Church
Lionel:
 Before the Synod on the Family, Cardinal Kaspar referred to Vatican Council II (UR 3) using this same error,which  I have mentioned above.No one pointed out the error to him. Since the SSPX makes the same error and are unaware of it. This is useful for Cardinal Kaspar and the liberals.
It's nice to affirme "it's not a break" but as we say: "What is not prove don't existe"
Lionel: 
I have written extensively on this subject on my blog, Eucharist and Mission, over the last few years. I have shown how the Council is not a break with the past when the false premise is avoided.I have been supported by Catholic priests in Rome, an American lay apologist and an Archbishop. They agree that Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus when the premise is not used in the interpretation.

On the other hand you cannot prove that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014. Do you know any one who will be saved this year without the baptism of water? Can there be anyone known to you this year who does not need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation? Then how can Vatican Council II refer to exceptions to the dogma?

In Christ
Lionel

No comments: