Christopher Ferrara,John Vennari the late Fr.Nicholas Gruner and SSPX bishops and priests have all been interpreting wrongly, Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).They did this by confusing what is subjective as being objective.Without this mistake Vatican Council II is traditional on ecumenism, religious liberty and inter religious dialogue.
I appreciate their writings on the need for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady, the error in Pope Francis' moral theology,the rejection of the dogma EENS by the popes,widespread modernism in the Church and the rejection of the pre Vatican Council II liturgy which they criticize.
However they too unknowingly have been affected with the new theology which they criticize.
The new theology was created when the error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston(1949) went un-noticed.
The error was supported by Archbishop Lefebvre, the Hildebrands,Michael Davis,Roberto De Matteo and traditionalists of that time.
What was the error?
The error was to assume hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were 1) known or can be known explicitly, in the present times, in other words they were objective and 2) they excluded the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
This was the new premise which was at the basis of the new salvation theology.Since it was not corrected by Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, this confusion was placed in Vatican Council II.Even after the Council(1965) it went un-noticed to Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops, Christopher Ferrrara, the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and present day traditionalist writers.
Now 50 years after Vatican Council II the Council is still being condemned by the traditionalists who assume hypothetical references are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS.For them the Council is a break with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
They simply had to correct the error and the Council supports the strict interpretation of EENS.But they are not doing this.Instead SSPX supporters are blocking all discussion on this subject.Comments are being removed from blogs.There is no clarification from Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and the SSPX priests.Even the SSPX priests over the last few years act as if I do not exist.
In Christopher Ferrara's book EWTN a Network Gone Wrong there was no comment on what I write.EWTN is using the same new theology except that they accept Vatican Council II while Chris Ferrara rejects it.
John Salza and Robert Siscoe wrote a pro-SSPX book recently in which EENS was mentioned but they did not address what I have been saying on my blog.The new theology is fixed in their mind.
I have been reading Fr.Nicholas Gruner and Chris Ferarra since I was a young man and I appreciate their writings and contribution for the Church.I am aware that it could come as a suprise for traditionalists and conservatives, when I say that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake, it was a factual error.I do not take pleasure in pointing it out.This is something the CDF should have done.
In Archbishop Lefebvre's book,'Open Letter to Confused Catholics' his understanding of the Church after Vatican Council II is correct.However he did not realize that the changes in doctrine and practise were based on Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc being visible and not invisible.So Vatican Council II was interpreted as a rupture with the traditional dogma EENS.EENS was written off in the Church in doctrine and praxis after 1965.So with EENS out of the way the old ecclesiology was discarded.
Yet all this was done not because there was a fault in the text of the Vatican Council II but because of the false inference of the text of Vatican Council II.
Even today if we avoid the false inference Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology on which was based an ecumenism of return, the need for all non Catholics to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.The dogma EENS supports the necessity of there being no Church and State separation and all political legislation having at its centre the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.Since most people, in this way, will go to Heaven and not Hell.
I repeat, even today we can correct the error.However we first need to identify it. We need to admit that Archbishop Lefebvre, Christopher Ferarra and the others made a mistake and this mistake can be corrected for the good of the SSPX and the Church at large.
-Lionel Andrades
The new theology was created when the error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston(1949) went un-noticed.
The error was supported by Archbishop Lefebvre, the Hildebrands,Michael Davis,Roberto De Matteo and traditionalists of that time.
What was the error?
The error was to assume hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were 1) known or can be known explicitly, in the present times, in other words they were objective and 2) they excluded the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
This was the new premise which was at the basis of the new salvation theology.Since it was not corrected by Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, this confusion was placed in Vatican Council II.Even after the Council(1965) it went un-noticed to Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops, Christopher Ferrrara, the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and present day traditionalist writers.
Now 50 years after Vatican Council II the Council is still being condemned by the traditionalists who assume hypothetical references are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS.For them the Council is a break with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
They simply had to correct the error and the Council supports the strict interpretation of EENS.But they are not doing this.Instead SSPX supporters are blocking all discussion on this subject.Comments are being removed from blogs.There is no clarification from Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and the SSPX priests.Even the SSPX priests over the last few years act as if I do not exist.
In Christopher Ferrara's book EWTN a Network Gone Wrong there was no comment on what I write.EWTN is using the same new theology except that they accept Vatican Council II while Chris Ferrara rejects it.
John Salza and Robert Siscoe wrote a pro-SSPX book recently in which EENS was mentioned but they did not address what I have been saying on my blog.The new theology is fixed in their mind.
I have been reading Fr.Nicholas Gruner and Chris Ferarra since I was a young man and I appreciate their writings and contribution for the Church.I am aware that it could come as a suprise for traditionalists and conservatives, when I say that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake, it was a factual error.I do not take pleasure in pointing it out.This is something the CDF should have done.
In Archbishop Lefebvre's book,'Open Letter to Confused Catholics' his understanding of the Church after Vatican Council II is correct.However he did not realize that the changes in doctrine and practise were based on Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc being visible and not invisible.So Vatican Council II was interpreted as a rupture with the traditional dogma EENS.EENS was written off in the Church in doctrine and praxis after 1965.So with EENS out of the way the old ecclesiology was discarded.
Yet all this was done not because there was a fault in the text of the Vatican Council II but because of the false inference of the text of Vatican Council II.
Even today if we avoid the false inference Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology on which was based an ecumenism of return, the need for all non Catholics to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.The dogma EENS supports the necessity of there being no Church and State separation and all political legislation having at its centre the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.Since most people, in this way, will go to Heaven and not Hell.
I repeat, even today we can correct the error.However we first need to identify it. We need to admit that Archbishop Lefebvre, Christopher Ferarra and the others made a mistake and this mistake can be corrected for the good of the SSPX and the Church at large.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment