Edmund Fawcett reviewed The Unbroken Thread: Discovering the Wisdom of Tradition in an Age of Chaos, by Sohrab Ahmari, in The New York Times.
"Iranian-born but raised in the United States and a convert to Catholicism, Ahmari is op-ed editor of the conservative, Murdoch-owned New York Post, which last year endorsed Donald Trump. He also writes a column in the conservative religious journal First Things. Although no foe of Western capitalism, Ahmari is aghast at what he takes for its ethical and spiritual desolation."
2 comments:
Don Pietro Leone writing on Vatican Council II and other religions on the web blog Rorate Caeili cites Unitatis Redintigratio,the Decree on Ecumenism, as if they are non hypothetical and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 1965-2021.This is an error in reasoning. His premise is false. So his conclusion has to be non traditional.
For me the theoretical and speculative lines from Unitatis Redintigratio or Lumen Gentium which he has quoted was a weak attempt by some of the Council Fathers, to eliminate the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
Why does Leone still have to interpret Vatican Council II with the confusion of the liberals and Lefebvrists ?
So what if Yves Congar and the others were present at Vatican Council II ? If UR 3 and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases in our reality, then they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
But for Leone they are exceptions.Since he has confused UR 3, LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Real people saved without faith and baptism and who are known to us.This is irrational. There are no such known people. If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.Yet for Leone Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.
Why don’t the Lefebvrists, like Leone, affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and not the liberal version, which projects UR 3,LG 8 as being practical exceptions to Tradition in general and exclusive salvation in particular ?.
There are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church and so there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any mentioned in Vatican Council II, unless of course a false premise continues to be employed.
Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?
Rorate Caeili and Don Leone are really promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They please the Masons who want the Council to be interpreted as a rupture with Catholic Tradition.It is as if Rorate Caeili has to interpet UR 3 as a rupture with an ecumenism of return or the retired Jewish Left profesor at the Angelicum, Rome, will object once again.
The big names at Vatican Council II, who thought they could get rid of the dogma EENS, by employing the error in the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949, which was overlooked by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII,did not know that there was a built in error.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to objective cases in our time and space.So they never ever were exceptions to EENS or the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
Priests are allowed to not affirm the Athanasius Creed in public and offer Holy Mass ?
The Catechesis in the parish is not Magisterial when the priests cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed in public.They also choose to reject the Athanasius Creed when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.
We now have the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II which does not employ the false premise. It interprets the Council with the rational premise, inference and conclusion. So there is no rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
So the Parish Priest is expected to affirm the Athanasius Creed he can no more say that it is contradicted with Vatican Council II.
Post a Comment