POPE LEO’S INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II PRODUCES POLARIZATION : GERMAN MEDIA NOT CORRECTED
POPE LEO’S INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II PRODUCES POLARIZATION : GERMAN MEDIA NOT CORRECTED
Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally is a break with Tradition but the Council can also be interpreted rationally.
To prevent war with Israel, Pope Leo must not change the ecclesiocentric interpretation of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.
In a recent interview with the German media, Cardinal Gerhardt Muller has cautioned the traditionalists (and progressivists). Why? Was he implying that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc, were explicit exceptions for EENS and the rest of Tradition? The German progessivists do not have to interpret LG 8, 14, 16 etc as being only hypothetical? There was no correction of this interview by the Holy See Press Office. Are Paulo Ruffini and Andrea Tornielli implying that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not hypothetical?
LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible cases for Archbishop Rino Fisichella and Fr. Antonio Spadero sj? This is polarization!
They are saying that Vatican Council II is not aligned with St. Thomas Aquinas on EENS. The Council is liberal and has a discontinuity with Tradition for them. So now we have liberal theology which opposes the traditional theology. We now have progressivists and traditionalists, two groups in the Church.
Polarization in the Church is being brought with a heretical and schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Leo and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. It is there in the theological discussions of the joint Vatican- Israel Commission on theology and related subjects. It is also the New Theology and New Ecclesoilogy of the Vatican Dicastery for the New Ecumenism based upon the Irrational Interpretation of Vatican Council II, only. This issue must be settled through dialogue and not through war.To prevent war with Israel, Pope Leo must not change the ecclesiocentric interpretation of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.
The German media interpreted Vatican Council Ii irrationally and not rationally, just like Cardinal Muller and there was no correction from Pope Leo.
The German media are not told that LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical cases only. So Ad Gentes 7 is aligned with the dogma EENS and LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions for AG 7 or EENS. Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and no more liberal.
The German cardinals and bishops, like Pope Leo, can no more talk in terms of traditionalist and progressivist. Vatican Council II, with Ad Gentes 7 not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16, supports the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS. This must be acknowledged by the pope.
The Council is now aligned with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the German media must be told. This has to sink in.
It is unethical to still project LG 14 and LG 16 as being explicit exceptions for the Council of Florence, 1442 on EENS. CCC 847-848 is no more an explicit exception for CCC 845-846.The pope must comment on this and end the polarization from the Left. Vatican Council II (AG 7not contradicted by LG 8, 14, 16) is aligned with all the Catechisms, also interpreted rationally in the same way.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) made a mistake when it projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This mistake must no more be repeated in the interpretation of Vatican Council II to create division in the Church.
Phillip Pullela and Joshua McEvee at Reuters, Rome, can no more criticize the traditionalists in the name of Vatican Council II. The Council supports the traditionalists!
Reuters and the National Catholic Reporter need to apologize for their mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
But now after some 60 - plus years, we know that the Council is no more a rupture with Tradition when we avoid the schismatic new theology of Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar and also Lefebvre, Ottaviani and Pope Paul VI. Their interpretation was based upon a false premise ( invisible people are visible on earth), false inference (visible cases of LG 16 are explicit examples of salvation outside the Church and objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc) and false conclusion (Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally is a break with Tradition). Yes Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally is a break with Tradition but the Council can also be interpreted rationally.
I use the rational premise (invisible people are invisible on earth), rational inference (LG 16 is a hypothetical and invisible case always and so does not contradict EENS etc) and traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition).
Without the Ratzinger-Muller, false premise, inference and conclusion, Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and all the Catechisms. The Council is no more responsible for division and polarization in the Catholic Church.- Lionel Andrades