Sunday, October 09, 2016

Buenos Aires letter last straw for some traditionalists

[Disclaimer: Rules ##7-9]

After recently checking some traditionalist sites, I've noticed that there has been considerable activity (just as there has been on 'conservative' Catholic sites, but far less restrained) since the revelation about Pope Francis's letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires asserting that the only correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is that authorizing the admission of couples in irregular (formally adulterous) 'second marriages' to the sacraments of Confession and Communion without any further intention of change of life. Here I simply list a very few of the more notable responses from traditionalist sites [Advisory: please note the 'Disclaimer' at the top of the page]:


3 comments:








Montaigne Montague

said...

Archbold gets the pope.

Which is one reason he was dropped from the NCR, I'd wager. Once one really 'gets' New Rome, and the Council, the corresponding views expressed become unacceptable to the new Church cocktail party narrative. If everyone else has been singing about springtime, and you suddenly point out all the gardens are rather empty, do you expect Cardinal Wuerl to hang with your conversation circle or say something about needing a drink and moving to on to a willing glad handler?





Catholic Mission

said...

They are still avioding this issue.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope Pius X are Feeneyite.They contradict Pope Pius XII,the Archbishop of Boston and the U.S Jesuits.Confusion arises with 29Q which can be interpreted as being visible or invisible

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope Pius X are Feeneyite.They support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.They contradict Pope Pius XII,the Archbishop of Boston and the U.S Jesuits. Numbers 24Q and 27Q in the Catechism are Feeneyite.Confusion arises with 29Q which can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.

Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X are Feeneyite for me. They say all need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members for salvation.
They do not say that there is known salvation outside the Church.They do not say that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit.So invincible ignorance and the catechumen who desires the baptism of water refer to hypothetical cases and not known cases in 2016.The text does not say it directly however one choose wrongly to make the inference.One can infer that there are references to visible for us in 2016 being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water.
So Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope Pius X support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston and contradict Pope Pius XII and the Archbishop of Boston only when hypothetical cases are not assumed to be defacto known ; invisible cases are not assumed to be visible and what is accepted in principle ( dejure) is not assumed to be known defacto( in reality).
In the Catechism of Pope Pius X see numbers 24Q and 27Q which are pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney.1
Confusion today comes with 29Q.2
It can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.If 29Q refers to visible cases in 2016, people personally known who are saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, then 29Q contradicts 24Q and 27Q. As I mentioned in a previous blog post I call this the Cushingite interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
For Cushingites there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This was the traditional intepretation.The dogma EENS is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. It is a rupture with St. Robert Bellamine, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier.It has the hermeneutic of rupture also with the three Church Councils which defined this dogma ex cathedra.
For me 29Q refers to an invisible case.So it is not an exception to 24Q and 27Q.So the Catechism of Pope Pius X is Feeneyite and not Cushingite for me.

All need to be living members of the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.No one can be saved outside the Church.

It is with this rational reasoning that I interpret Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X. It does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.

Vatican Council II amd the Catechism of Pope Pius X also do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.

For the traditionalists and the Vatican Curia, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.Since Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) refers to a visible case.The error emerges with the inference.
For me the Catholic Church teaches, before and after Vatican Council II, that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Protestants,atheists and other non Catholics,need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.-Lionel Andrades
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/vatican-council-ii-and-catechism-of.html





Anonymous

said...

What difference does any of this make anymore? The unity in the Catholic Church is as good as that in the vast majority of so-called Catholic marriages....NON-EXISTANT.

We oldsters should get "LACK OF FORM" nullity for our baptisms; this ain't the Catholic Church that my parents had me baptized in, not by a LONG shot.

It is very difficult to care anymore. It is much easier to despair; for my country, for the world and for what I thought that I used to believe, reasonably clearly.


Karl