ARCHBISHOP VIGANO MUST APPEAL AGAINST ERRORS IN HIS SCHISM- TRIAL : VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL IS NO MORE AN ISSUE FOR THE TRADITIONALISTS.
ARCHBISHOP VIGANO MUST APPEAL AGAINST ERRORS IN HIS SCHISM- TRIAL : VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL IS NO MORE AN ISSUE FOR THE TRADITIONALISTS.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has asked for a meeting with Pope Leo and has said that he is not in schism. The former Italian Nuncio could appeal against errors in his schism-trial.
Doctrinally the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) does not have a continuity with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Office) before 1949. The baptism of desire for example, referred to an invisible case over the centuries. It is common sense. So the baptism of desire was not an explicit exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Council of Florence 1442, which did not mention any exceptions for EENS, in its text. But for Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Archbishop Joseph Kennedy and Pope Francis, Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS. They imply that LG 14 (baptism of desire) is an explicit exception for EENS. So for them EENS has been made obsolete and so also the rest of Tradition.They imply, unlike over the centuries for the CDF that the bap’tism of desire (BOD) refers to a physically visible person saved outside the Catholic Church. Since an invisible person cannot be an exception for EENS. This is irrational but it also was the false reasoning of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston. The LOHO has not been corrected or cancelled by Cardinal Fernandez and the CDF.
It was this false reasoning, confusing what is invisible as being visible, which made the DDF schism trial null and void.
Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, deceptively and dishonestly was used to attack Tradition in general and in particular the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed (with invisible BOD) etc as held by Archbishop Vigano. He was correct when he said he rejected Vatican Council II irrational. Every Catholic must reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally as the DDF does presently.
They must affirm Vatican Council II, interpreted only rationally. This would be Catholic.
Pope Leo needs to issue an apology and cancel the past schism trial of the Italian Nuncio.
The same pattern of error is seen in the DDF decision on the former Arlington Carmelite Sisters in Texas, USA. The Sisters must be allowed to appeal against their excommunication by the DDF.
Similarly the excommunication for schism against the SSPX is false. Since there is a reference to the teachings of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict who interpreted LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 in Vatican Council II irrationally, non traditionally, dishonestly and schismatically. We now know some 60 -plus years later after Vatican Council II, that LG 8, 14, 16 etc can only be hypothetical and invisible cases in 2026-2027. So they cannot be objective exceptions for EENS ( with no exceptions), the Athanasius Creed ( with no exceptions) etc.
Pope Benedict repeated the objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Along with Cardinal Ladaria, he repeated the same error in two papers of the International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions and the Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without Baptism.
CARDINAL LADARIA REPEATED THE ERROR
Then at the Placquet Dei Press Conference Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF/DDF, along with Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, Secretary of the CDF, when asked by an Associated Press Reporter if the Church still taught that it had the superiority in salvation, he cited Lumen Gentium 8. He cited LG 8 (subsist it) as a visible case, a known exception for the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation of the Catechisms, Councils and Creeds. He falsely, like Cardinal Fernandez, at the Vigano trial, projected what is invisible as being visible to create schism, with the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century, on EENS.
For many Catholics, EENS today, is the same as it was known to St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis Xavier since invisible cases of LG 14, 16 etc, are not visible exceptions for traditional EENS. So the Church today, post- Vatican Council II, still has mission and evangelisation which is ecclesiocentric and not only Christocentric like that of Archbishop Rino Fisichella who uses the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II. . This would be my missionary approach based upon Vatican Council II interpreted honestly, unlike, Fernandez, Kennedy and Pope Francis.
PETITIONS AGAINST ECCLESIA DEI
The SSPX too, like Archbishop Vigano must appeal against the irrational, false and dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II. This must also be done by persecuted priests and religious sisters. Appeals must be made by Fr. Alessandro M. Minutella, Fr. Vaughn Treco and many others citing the L.A apologetics.
Also petitions must be filed against liberal, heretical and schismatic cardinals, bishops and priests, juridical persons, who interpret the Council and also the Creeds, Catechisms and old Councils irrationally. This includes the Ecclesia Dei communities.
The LG 16 visible error is an objective mistake and not part of the deposit of the faith. It is not part of Sacred Tradition.
1. At the schism-trial they made a philosophical error of observation when they projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being visible exceptions for EENS and the rest of Tradition. The LG 16 visible error was made by Fr.Karl Rahner sj, in his book The Christian of the Future. So with the LG 16 false premise, he rejected the dogma EENS, which he called 'triumphalism'. The 1949 LOHO with the false premise, was inserted wrongly in the Denzinger and then referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2. The false inference (LG 16 visible exceptions for EENS and Tradition ) created a false new theology, based upon a false philosophical observation.
3. So for them at the DDF , Vatican Council II had the hermeneutic of discontinuity with de fide teachings.But for many Catholics, Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with EENS, the Athansius Creed, an ecumenism of return to the Church, religious liberty as at the time of the papal states, collegiality based upon the old ecclesiology, traditional salvation- theology, traditional faith and morals etc.
4. Charity demands that Archbishop Vigano be allowed to accept Vatican Council II as being apostolic, magisterial, dogmatic and traditional and to accept Pope Leo as the pope.This must also be Pope Leo's interpretation of Vatican Council II.The Archbishop has an obligation to interpret Vatican Council II rationally even if Pope Leo does not do the same.
5. With the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rational, the mainline Catholic Church has to be traditional. Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are traditional. So the conservatives at the Novus Ordo Mass and the Latin Mass traditionalists have simply to proclaim the Faith in harmony with Vatican Council II.
6. There is a general consensus that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible and hypothetical cases for us human beings in 2026. Even non Christians and non Catholics agree on this point.
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is no more an issue for the traditionalists. Archbishop Vigano could be asked to affirm the Council rationally before his meeting with the pope and a review of the trial.
- Lionel Andrades