No, this isn't about ambiguity or a number of ambiguities.
In Vatican II you find a new subjectivized ecclesiology rooted in the new subjectivized soteriology.
The constant reduction of the council's apostasies to simple ambiguities is but a soft selling of un-Catholic ideas which it proposed.
If it's just a question of ambiguity, we are bound to resolve the ambiguity by applying the hermeneutic of continuity and then move along, but we would then have no business being Traditional Catholics.
Lad,
If there is anything in the docuмents of Vatican II
simpliciter it is ambiguity, but it is resolved by the implementation and explanations of the ambiguities in the docuмents themselves which expose the ambiguities for what they are - heretical.
For example, I maintain that this is heretical:
Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
Indeed, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, “since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et spes, n. 22).
JOHN PAUL II, GENERAL AUDIENCE, Wednesday, 9 September 1998
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1998/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998.html
JP II cites
Ad Gentes and
Gaudiem et spes in support of his proposition. The “ambiguities” resolve into this blatant heresy: salvation in other religions without recognition or acknowledgment of Christ as Saviour.
Do the cited authorities in Vat II say that directly and
simpliciter? No. As I said, not all reasonable men would agree that that is what those docuмents say.
Yet I say that is what they say, and the intentions of the drafters as expounded by men who were influential and part of the drafting. But the texts themselves are ambiguous to the extent that a reasonable man could read them, by themselves, and say they don’t say that.
One could even argue - and many have - that there is no definitive Magisterial pronouncement that one can only be saved by an explicit faith in Christ. Indeed, some like Nishant who maintain that explicit faith in Christ is necessary say it “hasn’t been settled.”
Of course I think Nishant is wrong. But I resolve it this way: not simply by reading previous pronouncements of the Magisterium as virtually and effectively precluding such a position as JP II’s - which perhaps may be arguable (cf. Nishant) - but on the basis that no Magisterial pronouncement prior to VII says that, not in 2,000 years of Magisterial teaching prior to VII and the Conciliar Church. This is something radical and new, and not justified by the times. Not a necessary new application of established truths. There were Jєωs, pagans and Muslims for centuries when the Church taught otherwise. As in 1441 when the Council of Florence said this:
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
So I see departures from tradition abounding: in this teaching regarding salvation without faith in Christ and in fact outside the Church (while being denied by sophistry, but still nonetheless being denied); by a radical creation of a “new rite” of the Mass which was implemented in the Latin Rite churches, contrary to Tradition and past expressions of the Magisterium regarding the Latin Rite, for example in Trent and Quo Primum); by the creation of new rites for almost all the sacraments; by abandoning the Gospel preaching of the necessity of conversion to the true Catholic faith, which the Magisterium previously asserted . . . etc.
The facts of a Revolution are indisputable. The mere fact of a Revolution in the Catholic Church, such a radical alteration of the faith, mocks Tradition, and is itself a clear sign of something wrong and to be rejected.
As I’ve said before, the search for heresy
simpliciter in the docuмents of Vatican II is not necessary. It’s a trip down a rabbit hole. The Conciliar Church has clearly told us where the rabbit hole leads.
We do not need to see more, or “find” it in the docuмents of Vatican II.
Topic: Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO (Read 5702 times)