Sunday, July 10, 2016
Book launch 20th July in London:
Fr Lanzetta: Vatican II, a
Pastoral Council
The Latin Mass Society is sponsoring a book launch in London
for Fr Serafino Lanzetta's book:20th July, from 6:30pm, in
the basement of St Mary Moorfields, Eldon Street, London,
concluding with Vespers at 8pm with the Schola
Gregoriana of Cambridge.
Lionel: Dr.Joseph Shaw and
Fr. Lanzetta are
Fr. Lanzetta are
liberal traditionalists.
They interpret Vatican
Council II with politically
correct Cushingsm.
This is approved by the
ecclesiastical hierarchy
in Britain.Cushingism as a
theology is based on an
irrational premise and
conclusion.
This violates the Principle of Non
Contradiction.The result is a
hermeneutic of rupture, a
break with Tradition.
____________________________
Fr Lanzetta's book is being published in English for the
first time, by Gracewing. Its translation into English
was sponsored by the Latin Mass Society.
first time, by Gracewing. Its translation into English
was sponsored by the Latin Mass Society.
Below is a written interview with Fr Lanzetta
about his book.
Vatican II, a pastoral CouncilThe Key-Problem of its
Hermeneutics
Interview with Fr. Serafino M. Lanzetta about his
latest work, “Vatican II: A Pastoral Council.
Hermeneutics of Council Teaching”, with a
foreword by Rt. Rev. Philip Egan,
Gracewing 2016, 528 pp. (or. It. Il
Vaticano II, un concilio pastorale.
Ermeneutica delle dottrine conciliari,
Siena 2014). This Interview appeared
originally in French, for the Journal
“Catholica” 125 (2014). The questions
have been formulated by the same
Journal.
latest work, “Vatican II: A Pastoral Council.
Hermeneutics of Council Teaching”, with a
foreword by Rt. Rev. Philip Egan,
Gracewing 2016, 528 pp. (or. It. Il
Vaticano II, un concilio pastorale.
Ermeneutica delle dottrine conciliari,
Siena 2014). This Interview appeared
originally in French, for the Journal
“Catholica” 125 (2014). The questions
have been formulated by the same
Journal.
1. Question: The Second Vatican
Council poses first and foremost
an epistemological problem even
before a theological one, or rather
to be precise, it poses a problem
that, in as much as it is theological,
is also necessarily epistemological.
Are we talking about the interpretation
or the understanding of its
documents? The very interpretation
is, in fact, a problem, both in
the modern perspective of the
constructivist interpretation and in
the post-modern view of the
deconstructivist interpretation.
The interpretation does not explain
the interpretation: in itself, it refers
to a basic principle. More than
being a solution, every
interpretation is itself a problem
within a problem. In the light of
your studies, what do you think of this?
Council poses first and foremost
an epistemological problem even
before a theological one, or rather
to be precise, it poses a problem
that, in as much as it is theological,
is also necessarily epistemological.
Are we talking about the interpretation
or the understanding of its
documents? The very interpretation
is, in fact, a problem, both in
the modern perspective of the
constructivist interpretation and in
the post-modern view of the
deconstructivist interpretation.
The interpretation does not explain
the interpretation: in itself, it refers
to a basic principle. More than
being a solution, every
interpretation is itself a problem
within a problem. In the light of
your studies, what do you think of this?
Lionel: Epistemology refers to
how does one know what
one knows,, what is the source
of ones knowledge,how does
one reason philosophically.
how does one know what
one knows,, what is the source
of ones knowledge,how does
one reason philosophically.
Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph Shaw
reason, philosophically, that there
are known cases of the baptism
of desire. They then
assume that these cases are explicit,
seen in the flesh in the present
times. They then conclude that
these 'objective cases' are objective
exceptions to the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
reason, philosophically, that there
are known cases of the baptism
of desire. They then
assume that these cases are explicit,
seen in the flesh in the present
times. They then conclude that
these 'objective cases' are objective
exceptions to the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
So with this philosophical reasoning
they interpret Vatican Council II (LG
16, UR 3 etc) as being a doctrinal
break with the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus.This was also the reasoning
of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
They both accept this reasoning in the
Letter as do the bishops in England.
They apply it Vatican Council II. So
doctrinally and pastorally, for them
Vatican is a break with the
traditional ecclesiology and the
traditional salvation theology.
they interpret Vatican Council II (LG
16, UR 3 etc) as being a doctrinal
break with the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus.This was also the reasoning
of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
They both accept this reasoning in the
Letter as do the bishops in England.
They apply it Vatican Council II. So
doctrinally and pastorally, for them
Vatican is a break with the
traditional ecclesiology and the
traditional salvation theology.
______________________________
Answer: Hermeneutics, namely the
interpretation of a text, and in our
case of a Magisterial text, is never
the solution to a problem but only
the instrument with which to
reach a solution, making reference
to a basic principal(sic) that precedes
the interpretation and the very
development of the text. This
principle is the faith of the Church,
namely the organic development
of her doctrine.
interpretation of a text, and in our
case of a Magisterial text, is never
the solution to a problem but only
the instrument with which to
reach a solution, making reference
to a basic principal(sic) that precedes
the interpretation and the very
development of the text. This
principle is the faith of the Church,
namely the organic development
of her doctrine.
Lionel: He refers to an organic
development of doctrine as do
the liberal theologians and the
contemporary magisterium.
development of doctrine as do
the liberal theologians and the
contemporary magisterium.
Without the irrational reasoning,
mentioned above, the
interpretation of Vatican
Council II would still be traditional
with no 'development'.
mentioned above, the
interpretation of Vatican
Council II would still be traditional
with no 'development'.
It is only by adding an irrational
premise ( LG 16-(invincible
ignorance, refers to explicit cases,
objectively known in2016) that
there is an irrational and non
traditional conclusion( there
are physically visible cases of
persons saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic
Church.So there are objective
exceptions to traditional EENS).
premise ( LG 16-(invincible
ignorance, refers to explicit cases,
objectively known in2016) that
there is an irrational and non
traditional conclusion( there
are physically visible cases of
persons saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic
Church.So there are objective
exceptions to traditional EENS).
________________________________
In my opinion, the problem is two fold.
We must first of all realise that there is
an interpretation problem of the texts
of the Second Vatican Council. The
texts – as every text, for that matter
– are the object of a twofold
interpretation depending on the
method one adopts: that of “discontinuity
and rupture”, or that of “renewal
in the continuity” as Pope Benedict
XVI told us.
We must first of all realise that there is
an interpretation problem of the texts
of the Second Vatican Council. The
texts – as every text, for that matter
– are the object of a twofold
interpretation depending on the
method one adopts: that of “discontinuity
and rupture”, or that of “renewal
in the continuity” as Pope Benedict
XVI told us.
Lionel: It is the irrational premise
and conclusion which decides the
hermeneutic of continuity or rupture.
When LG 16 is considered to be
explicit there is a hermeneutic of
rupture. When LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,
NA 2 etc are seen as implicit
and invisible for us in 2016, there
is a hermeneutic of continuity.Doctrine
has changed('developed') and this
is reflected in action(praxis), pastorally.
and conclusion which decides the
hermeneutic of continuity or rupture.
When LG 16 is considered to be
explicit there is a hermeneutic of
rupture. When LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,
NA 2 etc are seen as implicit
and invisible for us in 2016, there
is a hermeneutic of continuity.Doctrine
has changed('developed') and this
is reflected in action(praxis), pastorally.
__________________________________
In other words, the choice of the hermeneutic
approach depends on our concept of Church:
what is the Church?
approach depends on our concept of Church:
what is the Church?
Lionel: Yes it depends on what theology
is used. Cushingism says
there are known exceptions to EENS
in the present times. Feeneyism
says there cannot be
known exceptions to EENS humanly
speaking.Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph
Shaw are Cushingites as are the
present two popes.
is used. Cushingism says
there are known exceptions to EENS
in the present times. Feeneyism
says there cannot be
known exceptions to EENS humanly
speaking.Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph
Shaw are Cushingites as are the
present two popes.
____________________________________
A permanent synodality that becomes
aware of itself in history through the
extraordinary convocation of a council?
Or a mystery that precedes time and
becomes incarnated in history to then
later surpass it in eternity? This means,
from a theological point of view,
to give to hermeneutics which is
born in an existentialist and
post-metaphysical context, an
objective foundation in the mystery
that one wants to study: in our case,
a council in relation to the Church.
Otherwise, we run the risk of making
the method a solution, in a continuous
and absorbing interpretation.
aware of itself in history through the
extraordinary convocation of a council?
Or a mystery that precedes time and
becomes incarnated in history to then
later surpass it in eternity? This means,
from a theological point of view,
to give to hermeneutics which is
born in an existentialist and
post-metaphysical context, an
objective foundation in the mystery
that one wants to study: in our case,
a council in relation to the Church.
Otherwise, we run the risk of making
the method a solution, in a continuous
and absorbing interpretation.
Lionel: You simply avoid the
irrational premise and conclusion
and the hermeneutic changes. We
are back to the old understanding
of what is the Church ( ecclesiology).
irrational premise and conclusion
and the hermeneutic changes. We
are back to the old understanding
of what is the Church ( ecclesiology).
____________________________________
Having ascertained the fundamental
approach to the hermeneutic method,
a typical theme of modernity, one can
also clarify another problem.
approach to the hermeneutic method,
a typical theme of modernity, one can
also clarify another problem.
Lionel: He does not understand
what determines the hermeneutic of
rupture and continuity.
what determines the hermeneutic of
rupture and continuity.
______________________________________
It is not enough to clarify the
hermeneutic approach and choose
that which is consonant with the theme,
it is necessary to go to the texts, the
conciliar texts, by means of the
hermeneutical method. In other
words, it is not enough to choose
the hermeneutic of “renewal in the
continuity” in order to resolve the
problem of the texts of Vatican II
(admitting that at the epistemological
level it has been recognised as such),
but we must then apply it so as to allow
the continuity to be seen, to
demonstrate it, or rather, just show
it. If the method, the approach, was
the solution and not the point of
departure, it would be enough to state
it and to overcome the problem.
In reality, if we read carefully Benedict
XVI’s discourse to the Roman Curia
(22 December 2005), we see how
the Pontiff after having stated the
correct hermeneutical principal(sic)
as opposed to the erroneous one
of rupture, goes on straight away
to verify it in the example of
religious liberty.
hermeneutic approach and choose
that which is consonant with the theme,
it is necessary to go to the texts, the
conciliar texts, by means of the
hermeneutical method. In other
words, it is not enough to choose
the hermeneutic of “renewal in the
continuity” in order to resolve the
problem of the texts of Vatican II
(admitting that at the epistemological
level it has been recognised as such),
but we must then apply it so as to allow
the continuity to be seen, to
demonstrate it, or rather, just show
it. If the method, the approach, was
the solution and not the point of
departure, it would be enough to state
it and to overcome the problem.
In reality, if we read carefully Benedict
XVI’s discourse to the Roman Curia
(22 December 2005), we see how
the Pontiff after having stated the
correct hermeneutical principal(sic)
as opposed to the erroneous one
of rupture, goes on straight away
to verify it in the example of
religious liberty.
Lionel: Pope Benedict uses the new
theology, which is based on
Cushingism. It is a rejection of
the dogma EENS as it was
known to the 16th century
missionaries.So theologically
for him there are exceptions
to all needing to formally enter
the Church. So there has to be
exceptions to the teaching on
the Social Reign of Christ the
King.Why does all legislation
need to have as its center
Jesus and the Church, for
Pope Benedict, when there
is known salvation outside
the Church?
theology, which is based on
Cushingism. It is a rejection of
the dogma EENS as it was
known to the 16th century
missionaries.So theologically
for him there are exceptions
to all needing to formally enter
the Church. So there has to be
exceptions to the teaching on
the Social Reign of Christ the
King.Why does all legislation
need to have as its center
Jesus and the Church, for
Pope Benedict, when there
is known salvation outside
the Church?
Pope Benedict and Fr. Lanzetta's
'new theology' is based on
known salvation outside the
Church.It is a rupture with
Tradition.Fr.Lanzetta uses this
new theology to interpret
Unitatitis Redintigratio and
the rest of Vatican Council II.
'new theology' is based on
known salvation outside the
Church.It is a rupture with
Tradition.Fr.Lanzetta uses this
new theology to interpret
Unitatitis Redintigratio and
the rest of Vatican Council II.
If he affirmed EENS
( Feeneyite), however, and used
the Feeneyite reasoning Vatican Council
II would be Feeneyite on
religous liberty.His
understanding of knowledge,
its source and definition
in Vatican Council II
( epistemology) would
also change.
( Feeneyite), however, and used
the Feeneyite reasoning Vatican Council
II would be Feeneyite on
religous liberty.His
understanding of knowledge,
its source and definition
in Vatican Council II
( epistemology) would
also change.
___________________________
He reaffirms that principles do not
change, whereas the historical
forms that bear those principles
are in themselves subject to change.
change, whereas the historical
forms that bear those principles
are in themselves subject to change.
Lionel: Philosophically he
is contradicting the Principle
of Non Contradiction.
This would be expected
with an irrational premise.
is contradicting the Principle
of Non Contradiction.
This would be expected
with an irrational premise.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.lmschairman.org/2016/07/book-launch-20th-july-in-london-fr.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment