Sunday, July 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 5


Continued
4. Questions: In your work on Vatican II, after having dealt extensively with the problem of the conciliar teaching as an act of magisterium, you focus on the question of the Council’s position regarding the theological qualification of its very doctrines. The theories of those who made of it a “superdogma” (to use the expression of the then Cardinal Ratzinger), or in other words, the beginning of a “new Christianity” before which anything “pre-conciliar” is to be rejected, have emerged in these post-conciliar years.
Lionel: Yes.Since Vatican Council II with the Cushing theology has changed the Nicene Creed, rejected the Syllabus of Errors, rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, made the Athanasius Creed obsolete and provided theological exceptions for the doctrine on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.It has  created new doctrines in salvation theology.
________________________________________
 In this sense, coherently, they are surpassed by the theorists of the “spirit of the Council”, for whom Vatican II must go beyond itself: it is prolonged in the praxis that surpasses the “spirit”, to the point of exhausting (and emptying) it in this movement. Likewise, there are those who (they would say with a “conservatory” attitude) have “dogmatised” all the conciliar texts, making themselves their jealous propagators and aggressive custodians, but are paradoxically proved wrong by the very same conciliar texts. Could you indicate what are your theological conclusions in this regard?
Lionel: His theological conclusions would be limited. Since he is unaware of the possibility of interpreting Vatican Council II without the 1949 Letter. Fr.Lanzetta sees Vatican Council II as do the liberal theologians.This is the theology being enforced by the liberal magisterium of the present times.
______________________________________
Answer: It is particularly disconcerting to see how the Second Vatican Council has been “bent”, not without deliberate coercions, to the most varied interpretations that are all fundamentally ascribable to an over-estimation of the last council, with respect not only to all the other previous ones, but also to the Church’s history and the very mystery of the Church. Of course, if we start from the idea that between the first and the third Christian millennium there is a historical and conciliar gap – as the so-called “Bologna School” does – then Vatican II certainly serves to fill this void that was suddenly created. Undoubtedly, not all the councils were dogmatic like Trent and Vatican I, but certainly no council was pastorally dogmatic or dogmatically pastoral as Vatican II is made to become from time to time, both when it is made to rise as a new beginning and the North Star of the solemn and supreme magisterium of the Church, as well as when, in order to protect its new doctrines, they are “infallibilised” without realising that the Council itself does not desire this. What we ask ourselves however, is the “why” of such a tenacity on Vatican II. Maybe because it was supposed to represent the banner for a certain Catholicism which was very quickly auto-defined post-conciliar? A new “style” of being the Church and Christians? They do not realise that precisely this effort is to the detriment of the Council itself, reducing it to a dam, to a “super dogma” that in fact relativizes faith and morals.

Following the historical development of the idea of the council and its form (see the first chapter of my book), it is interesting to learn that it is not the juridical concept of “representation” (a council represents the Church) that defines a council in the strict sense – the conciliarists of the XIV century had mastered this concept in order to subordinate the Pope to the council – but rather the need, that was already felt at the first ecumenical council of Nicea, to defend the faith and to teach the truth: the greatest spiritual gift. The issue of a council has never been its infallibility, but the necessity to teach the truth.
Lionel: Here is where the liberal traditionalists fail. Since they do not teach the truth. They teach new doctrines created by liberal theologicans and approved by the contemporary magisterium. Heresy is innocently mistaken for being Catholic truth and here Fr. Lanzetta  is not aware of it.Joseph Shaw would be aware of it but he will not get the approval of the English bishops to announce it clearly in public. He will also be censored by his colleagues as a professor of philosophy and theology at the liberal Oxford University, England.The political Left will accept Lanzetta and Shaw's criticism Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.They praise Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
The Left would not expect Lanzetta and Shaw to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and so the Council would be traditional and dogmatic in ecclesiology, salvation theology, ecumenism and religious liberty.
Of course Lanzetta and Shaw could go ahead and speak the truth and say Vatican Council II can be interpreted with hypothetical cases not being explicit.So then the Council would not contradict the old ecclesiology but then they could lose their worldly and clerical-religious privileges.
The Latin Mass Society, England officially promotes liberal theology with a traditionalist veneer.
___________________________________

Also those who see Vatican II as a break from Tradition, in my humble opinion, over-estimates the Council, dogmatising and infallibilising each of its doctrines, even those that are more dispositions or pastoral teachings relative to times, which were judged as new.
Lionel: With Cushingism, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. It is heretical.This is obvious.
___________________________________
 If, in the judgement of some theologians, a solid biblical foundation is missing in order to establish, in the external forum, religious liberty as a foundation of a Christian State, from which “tolerance” towards the exercise of other religious cult is derived, how much more unsteady will such a biblical foundation be when one places all religions, because such, on the same level with regard to the exercise of cult in civil society, leaving to the laity the responsibility of announcing the Gospel to all?  Does the State no longer have any obligation towards God and the religio vera? I refer, to the example of positive religious liberty (exercised in the external forum) because it is one of the most debated subjects, whereas negative religious liberty remains biblically and traditionally clear (no matter of faith can be forced on someone’s conscience). This is one of the topics, perhaps the most heated, that requires like others, greater elasticity. It is necessary for Vatican II to be both read and interpreted for what it is, according to its mens, and not according to a personal (political) inclination towards the ecclesiastical right or left-wing, or a subjective sensitivity towards the conservative or progressive. Already in 1968 Dietrich von Hildebrand proved that a mere contraposition between conservatism and progressivism is simply sterile: the point is either truth or prevarication, the truth or a “spiritual house of cards”.
Lionel:Dietrich von Hildebrand was not aware of an alternative interpretation of Vatican Council II, without the mistake of the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney. The alternative was also unknown to Archbishop Lefebvre and Michael Davis. Roberto dei Mattei still does not comment on this.
_________________________

user img
For this purpose, based on other studies that have been published along the same line, it has been my desire to interrogate the Council as such. I have sought to re-discover – as far as it has been granted to me and save for a better judgement – the mens of the Vatican on certain key doctrines. The theologian is interested in understanding above all, so as to move with surety, the grade of magisterial teaching of the doctrines that we have before us. Precisely because this is not always clear, it is necessary to have recourse to a systematic study of the Council’s sources.
Lionel: Fr.Lanzetta continues in circles.
_____________________________
 The grade of magisterial teaching to which corresponds a theological note and on the other hand, a theological censure – I re-engage the topic of notes and censures that are so indispensable to the theological discussion –, with which to indicate a doctrine, allows us to examine the conciliar doctrines in a sure way; and there, where one finds the need because dealing with doctrines not yet definitively taught, to also be able to indicate some suggestions for an organic dogmatic progress, realised in any case by the Church’s magisterium. Upon examining these doctrines, which are among the most important and significant in the whole magisterial structure: Scripture-Tradition, members of the Church/belonging to the Church, episcopal collegiality, the mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Christ and in the Church, I have reached the conclusion that we find ourselves before truths to which could be attributed the following theological note:“sententiae ad fidem pertinentes”, that is doctrines “upon which magisterium has not yet pronounced itself definitively, whose negation could lead to placing other truths of the faith in danger and whose truth is guaranteed by their intimate connection with revelation” (see pp. 423-432 of my book). A subsequent dogmatic development would still be possible for these doctrines, to reach the grade “definitive tenenda” and higher still, to their proclamation as dogma of faith. For a fair number of theologians in Council, only the question of the “sacramentality of the episcopate” is a definitive doctrine. Also on this point, however, there is no unanimity.
Lionel: Fr. Lanzetta approves of a development of doctrine. He is a liberal theologian who offers the Traditional Latin Mass.Similarly Joseph Shaw is a liberal theologian who attends the Latin Mass without the ecclesiology of the pre-Council of Trent times.They are like Fr. Z who appreciates the vestments and liturgy of the Latin Mass along with with the new, non controversial ecclesiology. They do not object to the  politically correct, heretical ecclesiology which must accompanies the Latin Mass liturgy.They do not even comment upon it. This is the ecclesiology which is being objected to by the SSPX and the sedevacantists.
_______________________________

The verification of the so-called “mens Sanctae Synodus” could be seen by some as a light-hearted or even dangerous exercise, since it is up to the Magisterium to justify itself. Such a cutting off however, would abolish the very being of theology and contradict the repeated invites of the Council’s General Secretariat to read the proposed doctrines from the conciliar magisterium (not dogmatically defined nor held definitively, which would not require any interpretation because self-explanatory and would therefore be clear) with the spirit of the Council itself, a spirit that can be deduced from the subject dealt with and from the manner of expression, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.

The distinctiveness of my work consists in the fact that, with the aim of faithfully interpreting these doctrines of the Council, I avail myself of numerous first-hand sources. The numerous expert reports of theologians of the Doctrinal Commission were of great importance to my work, and which in the hierarchy of fonts, are to be placed at a much higher level than personal diaries, following straight after the Synodal Acts. They constitute the most authentic testimonies of what the theological mind of the Council prepared for the discussions, modifying or improving them based on the Council discussions, accepting or not the so-called modi presented by the Fathers. It is not hard to find the theological theses of various experts of the majority positions within the Commission. To follow the discussion of the Doctrinal Commission step-by-step is of great epistemic help in order to correctly evaluate the discussions of the Fathers in session.
Lionel: Cushingism was the dominant theology at Vatican Council II. There are so many superflous passages in the Council. These are passages which are the conclusion of an objective error.The Council Fathers assumed that the magisterium had rejected the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS since thoughout Vatican Council II (1962-1965) the Masons maintained the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney.Those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church would be excommunicated was the message.Fr.Feeney  was not presenting a new theology like Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits.
This is the first Council which has erred on such a grand scale.They overlooked a factual error and then built a whole new fantasy theology upon it, to reject Tradition.The objective error indicates that this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Council with the Cushingite theology is the work of human error  or even diabolical intervention.
____________________________
 The Fathers frequently depended on their theologians, but their theology did not always depend on the Church’s Tradition. This is also a factor that one must bear in mind, and that can settle, so I think, many discussions that are still open regarding the correct hermeneutics of the Second Vatican Council.- Serafino M. Lanzetta
Lionel: Vatican Council II was based on a new irrational theology which depended on hypothetical cases being explicit. This theology is not permanent. If we assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical, we still have many superflous passages in Vatican Council II, but we can interpret the Council as not contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction and not contradicting the old ecclesiology based on the strict interpretation of EENS.
Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph Shaw need to correct themself and then they will have a new perspective on the Council.
When they assume there are exceptions to the dogma EENS, as does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, they infer that there are personally known people in the present times ( 2016) who are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.So they are saying that every one needs to enter the Church but some people do not. Every one needs to be a Catholic for salvation, since this is the dogmatic teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and EENS but some people do not(like those in invincible ignorance etc).This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The new theology violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. This can be seen in the Letter(1949) where the second part of the Letter is Cushingite and contradicts the first part ( Feeneyite).
It can can be seen in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation but some do not ( invincible ignorance etc).

HOLY SPIRIT TEACH ERROR?
There are passages in Vatican Council II which are orthodox on salvation and these passages are followed by ambigous passages based on Cushingism and the new theology.So we now have 'a new faith', based on a violation of simple reasoning and philosophy.It contradicts Aristotles Principle of Non Contradiction.It has been approved in Vatican Council II.How can this error be the teaching of the Holy Spirit?-Lionel Andrades.
(Concluded)

JULY 10, 2016


Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 4http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_70.html


http://www.lmschairman.org/2016/07/book-launch-20th-july-in-london-fr.html

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 4


Continued



3. Question: As is known, since its indiction, Vatican II was willed as pastoral (therefore, neither dogmatic nor disciplinary). 
Lionel: It has replaced the dogma EENS with a new theology. So it has created new doctrines on salvation and has replaced the old salvation theology.
____________________________
A method and a praxis are manifested in order to precede and dispose the documents themselves. Thus a method is established and the content to be identified. Or analogously, the praxeological attitude is the premise, and the teaching is to be carried out as a consequence.
Lionel: The praxis is based on a false premise and conclusion.So Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
___________________________
 Precisely for this reason, the primate of pastorality emerges (in the intentions, formulation, language). In this sense, pastorality itself undeniably opens a problem rather than contain a solution. Studying Vatican II in your latest book, you make use of the category of “pastoral epiphany”. What reflections do you propose in this regard?
Answer: As I said before, it is my opinion that pastorality is the problem to be resolved in the Council.
Lionel: I think the primary problem is doctrine.This is reflected in praxis.
___________________________
 Not in the sense that it is a problem in itself, but rather, because we do not have a definition of pastorality according to the mind of the Council. One simply retakes its classical meaning and definition in theology, or it is read according to the minds of some influential conciliar theologians, ending up with assuming more than one role or often going beyond its ambit. In the name of pastorality, discussions were cut short, by it, the agenda of the Council’s extraordinary magisterium was often planned and doctrine proposed, even if, like I said, their theological age was extremely young, and should rather have been left to further debate notwithstanding its long course.
Lionel: They were proposing and implementing magisterial heresy. This is unprecedented for a  Church Council.
______________________________
 There is also another surprising factor: pastorality is also often inflected as an ecumenical effort of the Council, but this almost always means a one-way ecumenism with Protestants. And what about the Orthodox of the East? Some Fathers complained about this, seeing in this pastoral choice more a wound to unity than a new encouragement. For example, why was there an extremely long disquisition on the Traditio constitutiva of the Church, which had lasted over years, with the aim of toning it down, when it was the central and vital theme of Orthodoxy (above all in the liturgical ambit)?
Furthermore, I consider that the key problem is this: one cannot make of the object of study, that is, of understanding the new significance of the conciliar pastorality, the same hermeneutical method with which one approaches the problem. I reiterate: the problem cannot become the method as occurs in many hermeneutics. I would like to give a concrete example in order to show the different way in which the Council Fathers, and even before them, the theologians, debated in the name of pastorality, which was to be indicated by John XXIII as the new position of the entire magisterial structure. For this purpose, I present the definition of the word “pastoral” given by a conciliar Father and a theological expert of the Council’s Doctrinal Commission.
The General Master of the Dominicans, one of the Conciliar Fathers, Fr. A. Fernandez presents this definition of “pastoral” in one of his oral interventions during the Conciliar session as thus:
“1. The word “pastoral” is an adjective. It cannot be understood nor explained if not with regard to the substantive. The substantive admits a double case, and one must not mistake one for the other; a) either means the substantive that is the pasture or food; b) or otherwise the substantive that is the method of administering food and pasture. 2. Therefore, the pastoral munus of the Council refers principally to the substantive that is the food or the pasture. In fact, the Council defends the truth, it proposes the truth.
Lionel: The substantive is false.It is a new doctrine, an innovation in the Church which has come from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office mistake.
_____________________________
 The truth is clear, perspicuous, it is what one would expect of it.
Lionel: Here falsehood and deception is proposed as the truth.The deception is still promoted by the contemporary magisterium.
_____________________________
 The pastoral munus of each one of us refers principally to the substantive that is the method. The conciliar doctrine belongs to the pastors, wholesome food to administer to all, attentive to the conditions of places, times and people.
Lionel: New doctrine on salvation is not wholesome food.
______________________________


 A simple way to the simple, a learned manner to the learned. […] We must not seek a pastoral nature that is obtained to the detriment of the truth. Wherefore, if out of two formulas, one more pastoral but less clear and exact, and another less pastoral but clearer and more exact, without a doubt, the second is to be preferred in council. In pastoral praxis the first is chosen; […]” (in Acta Synodalia [=AS] I/3, p.237).
Lionel: The faith was changed in 1949 Boston. The change was accepted in Vatican Council II. We can though still interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of the irrational Cushingism. The change is not something permanent. In this was we go back to the old ecclesiology and express it pastorally, as it was done in the past, before the innovation came into the Catholic Church.
__________________________________
Against this idea of pastorality in line with the constant vision of theology and magisterium, was the more theologically personal interpretation of E. Schillebeeckx, which was no less influential as can be seen from the discussions in Doctrinal Commission. He writes:
“The pastoral council becomes doctrinal, precisely on account of its pastoral character. “Pastoral” calls for doctrinal deepening” (The Council notes of Edward Schillebeeckx 1962-1963, Peters, Leuven 2011, p. 37). Here the Council’s pastorality clearly, rather than being food with which to nourish the faithful with the truth, becomes a “strategy” which makes the same doctrine blossom. Of course, not all the theologians shared in this vision, but the more influential and renowned did.
Lionel: The liberal theologians shared 'in this vision'. I assume so did the Masons.
____________________________________
This is why it is not easy to identify straight away and with absolute certainty what pastorality means in Vatican II. For this reason I chose the word “epiphania” (manifestation, apparition) to objectify where, from my point of view, this easy composition of doctrine and pastoral is manifested – that doctrine gradually formed for a pastoral motive, not for the presentation of a doctrine as such, but for a presentation to be made in a certain way, bearing in mind certain external requests, among which in a prevailing manner, the ecumenical afflatus. 
Lionel: Fr.Lanzetta is still searching in the dark.
______________________________________

Following the distinction of Fr Fernandez, the Council already carries out the work of the pastor, that work of “translation” which would then have been assigned to bishops and priests with all-pastoral prudence and solicitude. I speak of “pastoral epiphanies” therefore, because I try to show precisely how the “principally pastoral aim” of the Council, as one deduces more than once from the official replies either from the Secretary of the Council or from the Council’s Doctrinal Commission (cf. AS II/6, 205; AS III/8, p.10), presides in a certain way over the magisterial development of Vatican II and therefore limits, besides the teaching itself, also the way of presenting a doctrine, doing it in such a way that Vatican II normally consolidates itself on the ordinary authentic magisterium. 
Lionel: Magisterial development of Vatican Council II.' 
'Vatican II normally consolidates itself on the ordinary authentic magisterium'.
He refers to Cushingism.Cushingism is the authentic magisterium of the Church for Fr. Lanzetta.
_________________________________________

Vatican II was free to do so, but councils were normally convoked not to begin teaching doctrines, but to settle errors, to define truths of the Faith, or to teach them in a definitive and hence unreformable way.
Lionel: It seems as if Vatican Council II was called to implement the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and to culminate the centuries- old effort by the Masons, to eliminate the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is a foundational dogma for other Church teachings including the non separation of Church and State.
Cardinal Ratzinger continued the same work in  the Catechism of the Catholic Church.CCC 846  refers to the dogma as an 'aphorism'.While the theology approved for the Catechism, by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn, is also based on Cushingism.It is the new salvation theology created with philosophical subjectivisim. 
___________________________________________

 Here, for example, lies the difference between Vatican I and Vatican II. It is necessary to realise this difference, bearing in mind that it reveals itself precisely in this new fusion of pastorality and doctrinality. With my interpretation however, I intend to protect Vatican II from an excessive enthusiasm, which could end up generating a new re-interpretation precisely due to the “pastoral epiphanies”, finally concluding that for the first time, we truly find ourselves before a pastoral council! In fact, whilst I examine these epiphanies with the aim of applying a realistic hermeneutic, I keep to the traditional distinction between pastoral and dogmatic, seeing them as one being the reason of the other, but subordinating the praxis to faith and dogma.
Lionel: Yes praxis is subordinated to faith and dogma but in this case both faith and dogma have been changed.This is not noticed by Fr. Serafino Lanzetta.
__________________________________
I carry out an examination of the Council’s epiphanic pastorality fundamentally in three areas of the conciliar doctrines: 1) in the intentions and formation of the doctrine regarding the relationship Scripture-Tradition in Dei Verbum; 2) in the intentions and formation of the doctrine on the Church in Lumen gentium;
Lionel: This is done with irrational Cushing theology.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -3

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_5.html

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -3

Continued
2. Question: From reading the documents of Vatican II, it clearly emerges that it is the Council itself that poses the problem of the Council. It would be enough to refer to the first note of the introduction to Gaudium et spes to realise it. The Council itself appears needy of explanations: the case of the Nota explicativa praevia is emblematic. The conciliar texts objectively highlight the questions opened by themselves. To remember this simply means to take the documents seriously. To interdict discussion (on the grounds of a misunderstood “respect”, which is implicitly equivalent to an irrationalist conception of power) certainly does not contribute to clarifying the matter. The prohibition to ask questions – as Eric Voegelin has reminded us – is proper to (gnostic) ideologies. This differs from authentic theological intelligence, which is in itself, open to face questions and discussions. In your opinion, to what point are the analyses of the various problems open?
Answer: The hermeneutical problem of the Second Vatican Council does not originate simply after, during the receptive phase of the conciliar magisterium, but already in the phases of the conciliar assizes. It is very surprising to see how the theme of the Council’s pastorality, sometimes inflected as “aggiornamento” (a word never used in the papal discourses during the Council, but by John XXIII in reference to the Code of Canon Law in his speech for the convocation of the Roman Synod, and consequently of the new Council) was to be a key for passing from the schemes that had been justly prepared for the conciliar discussion, to the new schemes that arose from this discussion, and above all, from the heated theological disputes of the experts. For example, the prepared scheme De fontibus Revelationis, in the opinion of many, should have been rejected as such, because it was not very “pastoral” and furthermore, did not respond to the intentions of John XXIII in his opening speech Gaudet mater ecclesia. This manner of proceeding was like the leitmotiv in the discussion. The problem, however, was to establish what “pastoral” actually meant and if John XXIII had really wanted to pose pastorality (understood per se already in a new way) against the manner of proceeding of the previous Ecumenical Councils. This was the problem that was readdressed from time to time by the orators in session, most of all, regarding the more important schemes, such as that on the Church, which required an interpretation of the mens of the Pope. This would then require an interpretation of the mens of the Council itself. In fact, the manner of interpreting “pastorality” in relation to the opening speech, will orient the majority of the Council and therefore the votes. One is therefore obliged to ask himself, for instance, what “pastorality” means according to the mind of the Second Vatican Council.
I do not follow the footsteps of C. Theobald in the French circle, of H. Sauer in the German one, of G. Ruggieri in the Italian, who make of pastorality itself a hermeneutical principle of Vatican II, reading the entire conciliar magisterium by its light.
Lionel: 'Pastorality' depends on doctrine.It depends on the faith.
____________________________
 I see pastorality rather as the problem to be resolved, indicating that which I believe to be the only solution and that is, the classic distinction between the dogmatic and pastoral. The pastoral draws its reason for being from the dogma of faith and from the one, undivided Church...
Lionel: Yes.
______________________________
 ...(in order to act, one must be), ever capable at the same time, to solicit new analyses and clarifications by reason of future challenges.
Lionel: Not with a new premise and conclusion.This was not part of the one, undividied Church.
_______________________________
 It cannot become the hermeneutical motive for the conciliar movement towards a new Church, towards a “softer doctrine” that adapts itself to various situations,...
Lionel: This is what happens when a dogma and doctrine is changed with an irrational premise and conclusion.
_______________________________
 ...for the simple fact that pastorality is itself mutability linked to time and to concrete situations, whereas the Faith, protected and announced by the Church, precedes time, enlightening and redeeming it. 
Lionel: However salvation theology has been changed by assuming the baptism of desire is subjectively known in the present times. How can it be  objectively known to us human beings? This is subjectivisim. It is similar to the subjectivism of Fr. Charles Curran in moral theology.It can also be seen in Pope Francis' exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
________________________________
This seems to me to be precisely a very relevant and open question for theology: the capacity to re-write, in view of the times, that ancient and harmonious binomial that sees doctrine in view of the pastoral and the pastoral for the salvation of the peoples.
Lionel: With the objective error in salvation theology we have the pastoral action, new approaches..It is applied to new doctrine.
__________________________________
 After all, what is necessary is to place faith and charity, reason and love, in their correct and wise circular order.
A historical and theological interest to deepen the understanding of how things really went is growing, and this without a doubt, is praiseworthy. In recent years, very useful studies have been produced on the hermeneutical theme of Vatican II and above all, on a theme that comes before every possible theological investigation: to clarify the distinction of the conciliar magisterium according to the documental hierarchy. A dogmatic constitution is not a decree or a declaration. It has been specified various times that the pillars of the whole magisterium of Vatican II are the two dogmatic constitutions: Lumen gentium on the Church and Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation, following which, Sacrosanctum Conciliumon the liturgy and the pastoral Gaudium et Spes.
Lionel:They have texts which are conclusions based upon an irrational premise.
____________________________
 These four constitutions, as one can see, are already different among themselves in regards to their doctrinal content. Gaudium et Spes cannot rise to a doctrine stricto sensu or in toto, as on the contrary, Lumen gentium. Rather, it presupposes some doctrinal principles: it is the word of the Church addressed to the world, with the aim of showing the way in which She understands her presence in the then contemporary panorama which has already changed today. This, as you mentioned, recalled the first note to the text of the pastoral constitution, not without letting the first difficulties transpire. It is already difficult to put together the two words that distinguish the document: “constitution” and “pastoral”. The Council is clearly adopting a new manner of teaching, which must necessarily be noted for a corresponding hermeneutic. If one then observes the two dogmatic constitutions, various levels of magisterium can be seen, even if one attests to this data: the general tenor of the teaching is solemn/extraordinary or supreme in respect to the subject who teaches (an ecumenical council) and authentic, ordinary in respect to the subject taught, deducing this from its re-proposition or initial proposition and from the way in which it is taught. In order to understand the Second Vatican Council, one must frequently make distinctions and not put “all our eggs in one basket.
Lionel:Vatican Council II has erred and the error is their in these documents. The error is objective and it would be sufficient for any one to reject Vatican Council II if they wanted to. Since this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit cannot teach error.
1.The Second Vatican Council II has erred when it accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text.
2.It has erred when in principle it accepted that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
3.It has erred when it assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases,known persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). So Lumen Gentium 14 says only those persons need to enter the Church for salvation, to avoid Hell, who know about the Jesus and the Church.In other words who are not in invincible ignorance.Here we have a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II based on an irrational premise.The Council Fathers erred.
They also rejected the dogma EENS which says all need to enter the Church. They have also contradicted Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. AG 7 does not say there are exceptions when it refers to all.
__________________________
Another factor must also be considered in order to approach the documents in a correct manner: it often occurs that a declaration or a decree reprises or deepens the study of the themes taught in the constitutions. One can think, for example, of the ecumenical theme and therefore, of the relation with the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, with the other Christian communities or churches examined in Unitatis redintegratio with respect to Lumen Gentium. This tells us that also a dogmatic constitution is not a closed and definitive text; its teachings can be completed by another document of an inferior juridical nature and by a theme developed elsewhere. Remember also the example of an inverse case, the theme of permanent diaconate dealt with in Lumen gentium and taken up again with a new but also problematic emphasis in the decree on the missions Ad gentes (where it speaks of “men who carry out the functions of the deacon’s office”, n.16, “functions” which however do not exist outside the sacrament). What does this say to us on a hermeneutical level? Above all that we must be cautious in distinguishing between doctrines, the way to teach them and the nature of the document that teaches them, bearing in mind the aim of the Council that is almost always present: the pastorality of the Council.
There are also other themes that would deserve new attention from theology, that I try to evidence in my work. In studying Vatican II in its conciliar phases, one witnesses a rather singular fact. During the sessions of conciliar debates and above all, in the Doctrinal Commission, some much more recent doctrines in terms of theological study and magisterial development – for example, episcopal collegiality, permanent married deacons, sacramentality of the Church – were proposed with notable zeal by skilled theologians to the Fathers, and were later taught; whereas other doctrines, much more ancient in their dogmatic development, to which was often possible to add the attribute of “common” – we can think of limbo, or the theme of creation and the snare of evolutionism, or the members of the Church (how does one belong in a perfect or full way to the Church?) in relation to the connection between the invisible mystery or mystical Body of Christ and the visible and hierarchical society or the social and historical body – were instead, set aside because considered not yet mature and to be left to theological discussion.
Lionel: It was here where Cushingism replaced traditional Feeneyism as a theology. We can think of limbo and exclusive salvation in the Church.The Council chose Cushingism as an interpretative theology.
'Or the members of the Church (how does one belong in a perfect or full way to the Church?) in relation to the connection between the invisible mystery or mystical Body of Christ and the visible and hierarchical society...',here too Cushingism was chosen as the new theology.The text was written in a way that it could be interpreted with Cushingism.
The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney had still not been lifted during Vatican Council II. So it could have been assumed by all durng the Council, that the magisterium supported  the new theology, based on known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
-Lionel Andrades

JULY 10, 2016


Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw_10.html




Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise -2

Continued:
Therefore, continuity in the principles, while mutability or discontinuity in the historical forms.
Lionel:There is no continuity in the principles. Before the Council of Trent the principle was that the a catechumen's desire for the baptism of water, who dies before he received it, was a hypothetical case.So it was not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).For the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 the baptism of desire was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So the inference is that the baptism of desire is objective, and visibly known for it to be an exception in the present times.So we have to two different principles.
I interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the pr-Council of Trent principle and this not the same for the Latin Mass Society or for Fr. Lanzetta and Bishop Egan.
__________________________
 The problem, in Benedict XVI’s judgement, is precisely the coordination of continuity and discontinuity, which both lend themselves, even if on two different levels. Today, the situation of the 60s-70s of the last century in the West has already changed greatly. A great open-minded and tolerant trust towards the exercise of religious liberty has been replaced by a frightening relativist aggression, which should stimulate the theologian to discern new possibilities for a correct exercise of religious liberty in the external forum, concentrating one’s attention more on God’s truth than on the mere possibility of choosing among the varied religious panorama. This however, requires a separate discussion.
Let us return to the problem of the method. We are talking about interpreting the documents and reading them in the light of the Church’s faith, the true key-criteria from which we must begin and the foundation to which every theological interpretation must be led back.
Lionel: Fr.Lanzetta and my concept of faith is different.He is a Cushingite and interprets the faith with an irrational theology based on philosophical relativism.It changes traditional Catholic salvation theology.He is supported by the contemporary magisterium and liberal theologians.
_______________________
 I was saying that it is not sufficient to state the hermeneutical criteria that one adopts in order to have the solution. 
Lionel: The 'hermeneutical critieria' is the using or avoiding an irrational premise and conclusion.It is interpreting hypothetical references as being only hypothetical and not objectively known in the present times.One can assume being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) refers to a theoretical case.Or, wrongly assume it is someone whom you can meet on the streets back home who has been saved as such.
__________________________
This goes both for when one adopts an incorrect criteria like that of fundamental discontinuity and rupture, as for when one adopts the correct criteria of continuity.
Lionel: One adopts the incorrect criteria with the use of the Cushingite premise.So there is a 'fundamental discontinuity and rupture'.Avoid it and there remains the correct criteria for continuity.
__________________________
 I will give an example to clarify this concept. Let us take a doctrinal element contained in the decree on ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio n.11: the so-called “hierarchy of truths”. What does it mean? Formulated in this way, this principle is rather new and typical of Vatican II. Certainly one must interpret this proposition correctly, which in turn serves as a criteria of interpretation of “Revelation”. Does this mean that there are truths hierarchically subordinated because less revealed than others or less binding than others because not so important? Certainly not, but it means that in the system of revealed truths (defined or not defined by the Church), not all of them have the same relationship with the basis of Revelation. For example: the Immaculate Conception of Mary is connected to God’s Revelation through the truth of original sin originated and of Christ’s Universal Redemption, but no one would dare to say that it is less important or less revealed than the truth of Universal Redemption. The hierarchy of truths must be read in view of the analogy of truth and not as subordination of some truths to others, to the point of being able to favour their momentary or permanent “pastoral freezing”. Therefore, using the hermeneutical criteria of continuity of the Council with all of the Church’s faith, analogia fidei is the only way to read this “hierarchy of truths” correctly and not using, on the contrary, as some theologians do, the precedence of praxis over theory – that is the precedence of ecumenical dialogue over the one and unique truth of the Church, claiming the unity of Christ’s disciples, invoked by the Lord Himself, more impelling today than the unity of the Church constituted by Christ.
Lionel: I agree here.
_______________________
 The hermeneutical principle can therefore constitute a problem. The only way that it can be used correctly is for it to be guided by what the Church has always believed and lived.
Lionel: Precisely.The Church had in the past  accepted the baptism of desire in good will and in response to a campaign to have it accepted as relevant to EENS. However the Church before the Council of Trent did not claim that what common sense indicates is implicit, must be interpreted as being explicit.
When St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned in the man in the forest living in invincible ignorance he did not say that this was someone who could be personally known. Yet this is how St. Thomas Aquinas is re-interpreted.
________________________
 In concise words, the only correct principle of interpretation of Vatican II is the uninterrupted Tradition of the Church, which also protects us from another risk: to resolve the whole of Vatican II in a hermeneutical problem, through an adaptation more or less favourable to modernity, which poses the problem of interpretation as the fundamental problem, and forgetting rather, the true reason wherefore a council is convoked within the Church. It is time, fifty years after the last ecumenical council, to make room for the faith rather then a sole interpretation of Vatican II.
 Lionel: There was a break with the 'uninterrupted Tradition of the Church' with the Baltimore Catechism.A hypothetetical case of an unknown catechumen was placed in the Baptism Section of the Catechism.It was called a baptism even though it could not be physically seen like the baptism of water, nor repeated like the baptism of water. Then the break with the dogma EENS, a foundation dogma for other teachings of the Church, was complete in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office in the Boston Heresy Case.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Appropriately it was called the Boston Heresy Case.
-Lionel Andrades

JULY 10, 2016

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/frserafino-lanzetta-and-drjoseph-shaw.html