Christianity and Islam: A Common Heritage?

Yesterday (Thursday July 3,2014) I received a message from Fr.Frederico Lombardi,writing in his personal capacity and not as Director of the Holy See Press Office.It was in reference to a blog post of mine which I sent him.The post from Eucharist and Mission sent to him was Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Church documents with an irrationality : appeal for justice (July 1, 2014)

His letter e-mailed to me from the Vatican Press Office by Cristina Ravenda indicates others have also e-mailed him a copy of the same blog post.
Fr.Lombardi refers to the issue of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate as a ‘delicate subject’ and a ‘painful story’.

He has not addressed the content of the blog post. It said Pope Francis wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 while assuming that the baptism of desire is explicit for us instead of implicit. He then wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to use this same irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Holy Office 1949 made an error when it assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney. This error is carried over by the Vatican Curia, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Franciscans of the Immaculate have to affirm Vatican Council II while assuming that all salvation in Heaven is visible on earth. Then it has to be wrongly concluded that these ‘visible’ cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.

There was no comment from Fr.Frederico Lombardi S.J on this irrational doctrine. The Franciscans of the Immaculate have still to accept and use this irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, before they are allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and have teaching faculties once again-Lionel Andrades

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/frfrederico-lombardi-does-not-address.html

You yourself did not say it but you have posted sources that have made assumptions that it is not just an exception.

The Modernists were in the Church well before Vatican II.

Another suggestion:

http://www.amazon.com/Work-Human-Hands-Theological-Critique/dp/0982686706

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/03/work-of-human-hands-interviews.html

Is this guy a Feeneyite? I’m not sure I’m following what he is saying here.

Good rec, already read it.

Quoting Davies from a different book, entitled, “The Eternal Sacrifice, the Liturgy Since Vatican II” (Michael Davies, 1987, The Neumann Press), he writes: “They [the “liberal periti”] knew that few of the Council Fathers would vote for anything evidently in conflict with tradition, and so they adopted the tactics of inserting ambiguous passages into the documents, passages which could be interpreted in a manner that was far from traditional, once the Council had concluded. The existence of ambiguity in certain Council documents is a fact upon which there is agreement among commentators of every viewpoint, ranging from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Hans Kung and the Protestant Observers.”

If what Davies has written is accurate, the “Rhine Group” pulled off what was essentially a bait and switch. Deliberate ambiguities were inserted at the instigation of the “Rhine Group” which were interpreted by the Council Fathers in a traditional light. The intentions of the Council Fathers were later perverted by Modernists.

Have read Fr. Cekada and listened to his radio show. I agree with much of what he has to say, but disagree with his practical solution to the modernist infiltration of the Church. The authority to judge whether or not a pope is legitimate is way above my pay grade.

Is this guy a Feeneyite? I’m not sure I’m following what he is saying here.

I'm not sure how else this statement could be interpreted:

"The Holy Office 1949 made an error when it assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney."

The intentions of the Council Fathers were later perverted by Modernists.

This is where I disagree. Many of the Council Fathers were modernists, themselves, and they got what they intended.

Bugnini had the full support of Pope John XXIII to push his agenda through.

From the Liturgical Time Bombs of VC II:

The Bugnini schema was accepted by a plenary session of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission in a vote taken on January 13, 1962. But the President of the Commission, the eighty-year old Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, had the foresight to realize the dangers implicit in certain passages. Father Gy writes: "The program of reform was so vast that it caused the president, Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, to hesitate." [Flannery, p. 23.] Unless the Cardinal could be persuaded to sign the schema, it would be blocked. It could not go through without his signature, even though it had been approved by a majority of the Commission. Father Bugnini needed to act. He arranged for immediate approaches to be made to Pope John, who agreed to intervene. He called for Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, his Secretary of State and the younger brother of the President of the Preparatory Commission, and told him to visit his brother and not return until the schema had been signed. The Cardinal complied:

Later a peritus of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission stated that the old Cardinal was almost in tears as he waved the document in the air and said: "They want me to sign this but I don't know if I want to." Then he laid the document on his desk, picked up a pen, and signed it. Four days later he died. [Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II (1967, rpt. Rockford, IL. TAN, 1985), p. 141.]

This is where I disagree. Many of the Council Fathers were modernists, themselves, and they got what they intended.

Exactly.

The link was to his book about the Novus Ordo liturgy which does not involve his sede views.

This is where I disagree. Many of the Council Fathers were modernists, themselves, and they got what they intended.

It's a question of degree. If the majority were modernists, why would the modernist mutineers have found it necessary to resort to embedding ambiguities in the documents?

I said “many”, not “the majority”.

Also, who do you think nominated the periti to attend the council?

Who turned off Cardinal Otti’s microphone?

>>Whenever I think about the Council, I said, I always have one image in my mind: an aging Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, now blind, about age 80, limping, the head of the Holy Office and so the chief doctrinal officer of the Church, born in Trastevere to parents who had many children, so a Roman from Rome, from the people of Rome, takes the microphone to speak to the 2,000 assembled bishops.
And, as he speaks, pleading for the bishops to consider the texts the curia has spent three years preparing, suddenly his microphone was shut off. He kept speaking, but no one could hear a word. Then, puzzled and flustered, he stopped speaking, in confusion. And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer...

“Yes,” Gherardini said. “And it was only the third day.”

“What?” I said.

“Ottaviani’s microphone was turned off on the third day of the Council.”

“On the third day?” I said. “I didn’t know that. I thought it was later, in November, after the progressive group became more organized...”

“No, it was the third day, October 13, 1962. The Council began on October 11.”

“Do you know who turned off the microphone?”

“Yes,” he said. “It was Cardinal Lienart of Lille, France.”

“But then,” I said, “it could almost be argued, perhaps, that such a breech of protocol, making it impossible for Ottaviani to make his arguments, somehow renders what came after, well, in a certain sense, improper...”

“Some people make that argument,” Gherardini replied.<<

And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer...

And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer...

Disgusting. Was that from Fr. Wiltgen's book? I have it in my tbr pile.

The following excerpt also refers to the ambiguities in the V II documents. I see that it was the Franciscans of the Immaculate who translated Monsignor Gherardini's study, in which he expresses his opinion that an "authoritative clarification of the troublesome ambiguities in the wording of the documents of the Second Vatican Council is urgently needed". His praise of VII would seem to indicate that he is not a traditionalist.

Ralph Martin (a charismatic, IIRC) has also published a book "Will Many Be Saved?" He essentially argues that according to LG, the conditions under which the non-evangelized can be saved are often not fulfilled.

Clearly even non-traditionalists are now starting to open their eyes to the source of the apostasy which has been unleashed post-VII.

---------------

"On March 25 of last year, Monsignor Gherardini brought out a critical appraisal of the documents of the Second Vatican Council and of their implementation (Brunero Gherardini, Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II: Un discorso da fare), which has now been translated into English by the Franciscans of the Immaculate under the title of The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion (Casa Mariana Editrice, Via Piano della Croce 6, Frigento [AV] Italy 83040). All of the following page references are to this English edition.

While acknowledging the many good effects of the Council, Msgr. Gherardini asks whether its pastoral purpose has been realized, in view of the ”tainted philosophies” that have flourished in its wake within the Church. He observes that the openings toward the spirit of this world recommended by the documents of the Council have not been kept within prudent limits in the aftermath. Instead, a “progressivist” interpretation of the Council documents has had full sway and a liberal hermeneutic based ambiguously on the heresy of Modernism condemned by Pope Pius X, leading to the “silent apostasy” (Pope Paul VI) that now exists within the Church.

Msgr. Gherardini treats at length a fundamental question regarding the nature of the Second Vatican Council. At its opening on October 11, 1962, it was characterized by Pope John XXIII as a “pastoral council” at which new dogmatic definitions were not to be sought, but rather it “would concentrate its forces upon the effort to make Christ present to contemporary man, to his mentality, to the culture of the new times” (words of Gherardini, p. 42). And so, to this day it is not clear whether any of the teachings proper to this council has dogmatic force. When an ecumenical council presents itself under the category of pastoral, he points out, “deliberately qualifying itself as being pastoral in character, then it excludes in this fashion any intent of a defining nature” (p. 29). Gherardini notes that the question of interpreting statements of the Council as dogmatic or pastoral was treated by the General Secretariat of the Council, which declared to the Assembly that “the text will always have to be interpreted in the light of the general rules known to everyone” (p. 56), and also that the mind of the Council “is made manifest both by the doctrine treated and by the tone of the verbal expression” (p. 58). Gherardini concludes that the teachings that are proper to the Second Vatican Council “cannot be considered dogmatic” because they lack the required form for defining truths (p. 59)...."

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt148.html

If the majority were modernists, why would the modernist mutineers have found it necessary to resort to embedding ambiguities in the documents?

Gentleman, whether "majority" or "many", ambiguities, confusion, contradictions, etc are the MARK of the Modernists.

That was supposed to be “GentlemEn”