Petition to Pope Benedict XVI for a more in-depth examination of the Second Vatican Council
Petition to Pope Benedict XVI for a more in-depth examination of the Second Vatican Council 14-10-2011 Filed under Documents Leave a Comment
To the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, that he might be willing to promote a more in-depth examination of the pastoral council, Vatican II.
Most Holy Father, Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, a priest of the Diocese of Prato and canon of Saint Peter’s Basilica, who is well known as a former professor of Ecclesiology at the Pontifical Lateran University and as dean of Italian theologians, wrote to Your Holiness in 2009 a very respectful and urgent petition calling for the commencement of a critical debate about the documents of Vatican II, a critical debate that would be conducted in a deliberate and public way. This step was seconded in 2010 by Roberto de Mattei, professor of Church History and the History of Christianity at the European University of Rome and vice president of the National Council of Research. In his petition, Msgr. Gherardini wrote: “For the good of the Church—and more especially to bring about the salvation of souls, which is her first and highest law (cf. the 1983 CIC, canon 1752)—after decades of liberal exegetical, theological, historiographical and “pastoral” creativity in the name of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, it seemed urgent to me that some clarity be created by answering authoritatively the question about the continuity of this council with the other councils (this time not simply by declaring it so but by proposing a genuine demonstration), the question about its fidelity to the Tradition of the Church.” …
Msgr. Gherardini. In favor of a careful, scientific analysis of the Second Vatican Council
“It seems, indeed, if not impossible, at least very difficult to make this hermeneutic of continuity [with all of the previous Magisterium] that you wish for evident, without first proceeding to make a careful, scientific analysis of the Council in general, of each of its documents, of each of the themes in these documents, of the immediate and remote sources of these themes and these documents…. It would be rather pointless to continue speaking about the Council only by repeating its contents or in presenting it as an absolute novelty. “But an examination of such scope far surpasses the abilities of one person, not only because one and the same subject requires elaborations at different levels (historical, patristic, canonical, philosophical, liturgical, theological, exegetical, sociological, scientific), but also because each conciliar document touches on dozens and dozens of subjects that only specialists in each of those subjects is capable of addressing effectively. “Long ago now the idea occurred to me (and now I dare to submit it to Your Holiness) of a grandiose and, if possible, definitive restatement of the last council that would treat each one of its aspects and themes. “Indeed it seems logical, and to me it seems imperative, that each of these aspects and themes be studied in itself and in the context of all the others, paying close attention to all the sources, and from the specific perspective of continuity with the previous Magisterium of the Church, whether solemn or ordinary. On the basis of a scientific, critical study that is as thorough and unexceptionable as possible, in connection with the traditional Magisterium of the Church, it will be possible then to derive the material for a sure, objective evaluation of Vatican II. “This will make it possible to answer the following questions, among many others: 1) What is the true nature of Vatican II? 2) What is the relation between its pastoral character (a notion that will have to be explained authoritatively) and its dogmatic character, if any? Can the pastoral character be reconciled with the dogmatic character? Does it assume the latter? Does it contradict it? Does it ignore it? 3) Is it really possible to define the Second Vatican Council as ‘dogmatic’? And therefore to refer to it as dogmatic? To use it as the basis of new theological assertions? In what sense? Within what limits? 4) Is Vatican II an “event” as the Bologna School understands it, in other words, one that cuts all ties with the past and inaugurates a new era in all respects? Or does it relive in itself the whole past eodem sensu eademque sententia [in the same sense and with the same purpose]?
All valid concerns. I pray Pope Benedict has an open mind to consider the concerns of these scholars.
Thursday, November 24, 2011 ECCLESSIOLOGY OF ENGLISH BISHOPS HIT BY TWO ERRORS 1) VISIBLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE 2) FR.LEONARD FEENEY EXCOMMUNICATED FOR THE SAME VIEW AS POPES, SAINTS AND DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION English bishops use an interpretation of Magisterial texts which contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as taught to Catholic seminarians. It is assumed by the …More
Thursday, November 24, 2011
ECCLESSIOLOGY OF ENGLISH BISHOPS HIT BY TWO ERRORS 1) VISIBLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE 2) FR.LEONARD FEENEY EXCOMMUNICATED FOR THE SAME VIEW AS POPES, SAINTS AND DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION
English bishops use an interpretation of Magisterial texts which contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as taught to Catholic seminarians.
It is assumed by the bishops that those saved among Christians and non Christians, in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, with ‘the seeds of the Word’ or in imperfect communion with the Church,are known to us in the present times and this is the ordinary way of salvation. They imply that this is an exception to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. So Protestants just have to believe in Jesus and they are saved in their religion through this ordinary means.This is a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).Vatican Council II indicates that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG 14, AG 7).
It is contradictory for the bishops to say:
De facto every one needs to be an explicit, visible member of the Church of salvation and defacto non Catholics in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire can be saved without the baptism of water.
It is not contradictory when they say:
Defacto every one with no exception needs to enter the Church as taught by ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII)
De jure a person can be saved with the baptism of desire.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII)
It is contradictory when they believe:
De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.(Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).
De facto some people can be saved in invincible ignorance.(Lumen Gentium 16).
It is not contradictory when they believe:
De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation. (Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14,Ad Gentes7).
De jure some people can be saved in invincible ignorance.(Lumen Gentium 16).
English bishops use an interpretation of Magisterial texts which contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as taught to Catholic seminarians.It is contradictory to common sense , even a lay man can notice, to imply that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are de facto known to us
Due to the contradiction in the interpretation young candidates with a religious vocation in England have to say everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be defacto exceptions like those saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is assumed to be visible and so is an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven. eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/vocation-direct…
If the baptism of desire was implicit for candidates it would not contradict the dogma, it would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma. It is an error for the bishops to interpret those saved with the baptism of desire as being de facto known to us.
Candidates with a religious vocation in England would also have to accept that Fr. Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ for holding the same view as the popes, including Pope Pius XII, who referred to 'the dogma', the saints and the dogma itself. Since the bishops assume that Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there are no exceptions to the dogma and that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions. For the bishops the baptism of desire is defacto and explicitly known to us and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. So were the popes and saints.
(a) No one knows of a particular case of someone being saved with the baptism of desire even though it is being assumed as being visible (b) Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the thrice-defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were all saying that de facto every adult needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. They did not consider the baptism of desire as explicit but knew that it was always implicit.
They imply that Vatican Council II has changed our concept of Church since those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are visible and de facto known to us in the present times. -Lionel Andrades
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 ECUMENISM OF THE ENGLISH BISHOPS CONTRARY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II According to the Home Mission Briefing on the website of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales(1) there is a joint mission program with the liberal Protestant World Council of Churches.(2) The English bishops who teach that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance …More
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
ECUMENISM OF THE ENGLISH BISHOPS CONTRARY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II
According to the Home Mission Briefing on the website of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales(1) there is a joint mission program with the liberal Protestant World Council of Churches.(2)
The English bishops who teach that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are visible to us (3)are suggesting that Christians, do not have to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentium 7, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cantate Domino Council of Florence etc).
Vatican Council II says all Christians need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. (4)
The Ecumenism policy of the English bishops is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church. It is a refutation of Catholic Tradition and the Church’s interpretation of the Bible.They have been evangelised by the Protestants.
They are unable to state that Vatican Council II and the dogma Outside the Church there is no Salvation teaches that all Protestants and Orthodox Christians are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
According to the Catholic Bishops, Protestants and other Christians can be saved in invincible ignorance etc just as in inter religious dialogue with non Christians it is assumed by the bishops that those saved in invincible ignorance among non Christians are known to us in the present times.They imply that this is an exception to the dogma.This is the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).
Young Catholics in England would have to say that everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be defacto exceptions like those saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is assumed to be visible and so is an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven. eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/vocation-direct…
If the baptism of desire was implicit for candidates it would not contradict the dogma, it would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma. Candidates with a religious vocation would be accepted who presumably could 'spot' these rare exceptional cases.Those who cannot do so will not be able to priests and nuns.
So candidates with a religious vocation in England would also have to accept also that Fr. Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ for holding the same view as the popes, including Pope Pius XII, who referred to 'the dogma', the saints and the dogma itself.
This is the teaching of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales on Ecumenism and inter faith dialogue. This is their policy when accepting candidates with a religious vocation and in teaching at Pontifical seminaries in Rome,the English and Beda College.
This new visible baptism of desire doctrine contradicts magisterial documents.It is also irrational. (a) No one knows of a particular case of someone being saved with the baptism of desire and (b) Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the thrice-defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades
___________________________________________
1.Adult Formation and Catechesis.Home Mission Briefing June 2010. Ecumenism
4.Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7
