ALL THE BOOKS OF ARCHBISHOP SALVATORE RINO FISICHELLA ARE WRITTEN WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
ALL THE BOOKS OF ARCHBISHOP SALVATORE RINO FISICHELLA ARE WRITTEN WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
Archbishop Salvatore "Rino" Fisichella, the Italian pro-prefect for the New Evangelization section of the Dicastery for Evangelization since 2022 has also been a Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Pontifical Lateran University. He was a consulter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Chaplain of His Holiness in 1994. He has served as the chaplain to the Italian parliament. He is a specialist in the theology of Hans Urs von Balthazar.
Like Balthazar, Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung, Congar, Guardini, Lubac and Lehmann he accepted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) which confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was an objective mistake of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( Holy Office ) in 1949. He then interpreted Vatican Council II, with LG 8,14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 being objective exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
So his liberal theology is a schismatic break with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
We can now interpret Vatican Council II rationally. Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation ) is aligned with the dogma EENS ( Council of Florence 1442) while invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not objective exceptions for EENS and the Athanasius Creed in 1965-2025. This is the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II which has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms when interpreted rationally.
The rational interpretation of Vatican Council II was not known to Balthazar, Ratzinger and Fisichella.
In his new book , Flee from Heresy, Bishop Athanasius Schneider has criticized the schismatic theology of Lubac, Ratzinger etc. It would also include the theology of Fisichella.
Archbishop Fisichella used the common false premise 1, invisible people are visible in the present time, 2, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible person in 2025-2026, 3, we can see and meet someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in Rome this month, for example etc.
The false premise is followed with the false inference 1) visible cases of LG 14 and 16 are objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, 2) the Athanasius Creed has exceptions and so is obsolete, 3) Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and inference has objective exceptions for the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal, 4) EENS today is no more the same as it was the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
So the false conclusion is that Vatican Council II has a rupture with the past. It is ‘a revolution’ in the Church, it is ‘a new revelation’ etc.
The confusing of what is implicit as being explicit is being called ‘ a nuanced interpretation ‘ of Vatican Council II and is politically correct with the Left.
I choose to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the rational premise, rational inference and traditional conclusion. So the Council and the Catechism remain magisterial and apostolic for me.-Lionel Andrades