Thursday, July 9, 2020
Vigano could get his doctrinal house in order : he is in a parallel Church, it is not Mother Church (Graphics)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano must talk about the secret false premise used to interpret Vatican Council II.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano must talk about the secret false premise used to interpret Vatican Council II. Without this common irrationality the Council , in a surprise, does not contradict exclusive salvation in the Church. So the Latin Mass would no more be an issue. Since the whole Church, theologically once again, would be traditional on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Even the German bishops would have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.
It would be a blessing for the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) and the Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I) who could affirm outside the Church there is no salvation and there being no exceptions. This was the Doctrinal position of the SSPX General Chapter Statement.
Presently only on this blog this error is corrected.The missing link, the discovery of what precisely causes the hermeneutic of rupture and how it can be avoided, has been discovered.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) keeps this information secret.
Without the false premise there is no 'development of doctrine'.
The CDF Secretaries and the Diocese of Manchester, USA have asked Brother Andre Marie MICM. Prior at the St.Benedict Centet, N.H, USA to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church(847-848) with the false premise. In this way CCC 847-848 becomes an objective example of salvation outside the Catholic Church and an exception to Feeneyite EENS, the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc.
Presently Catholics have lost their identity as they have to interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechisms, the Creeds and other magisterial documents with the false premise.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus with the false premise.Also the Balamand Declaration and the Joint Statement on Justification with the Lutherans was also possible theologically because of the false premise.Pope justified his Abu Dhabi Statement with Vatican Council II - interpreted with the false premise.
The International Theological Commission(ITC) in two of its papers have officially used the false premise and so it proposes a theology of religions which was condemned by Pope John Paul II ( CDF, Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis sj 2001).
Since the time of Fr. Leonard Feeney (1965) the St. Benedict Centers have been interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.
On the website Catholicism.org they have been promoting articles and books written with the false premise, like those of Amerio Romano and Roberto dei Mattei.Brother Andre Marie has reviewed conferences organsied by Michael Matt at which Vatican Council II without the false premise was not affirmed.The Angelus, Lepanto and Lake Garda conferences were held with the same mistake.No corrections are being announced.
The traditionalists were intepreting Vatican Council II with the false premise and there still is no acknowledgement of the error on Catholicism.org and other traditionalist blogs when this is pointed out.
It is the same with the liberals. The School of Theology in the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Roma is named after Cardinal Tisserant. The French cardinal was known to Pope Paul VI. Paul Paul VI and the cardinal chose to interpret Vatican Council with the false premise instead of without it.
So the School of Theology and the School for Catchetics in this diocese under Bishop Gino Reali near the Fiumicino airport, interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition (EENS etc).
Archbishop Vigano, a Lefbvrist, himself interprets Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms with the false premise, like the other Lefbvrists who follow the error of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.
The archbishop's theology and doctrine being Cushingite is flawed. He did not correct himself.Instead he would criticize Medugorje.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 8, 2020
Posted by Catholic Mission at 9:56 AM
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
Pope Benedict made a mistake. We have discovered the MISSING LINK. We now know how the hermeneutic of rupture emerges
To understand what I write on this subject (Vatican Council II in harmony with 16 century EENS) it would be helpful to see the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) as being wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney as being correct.
2.It would be helpful to keep in mind that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are always hypothetical.As Ann Barnhardt put it, being saved in invincible ignorance 'exists technically only on paper'. Or, as the apologist John Martignoni said, 'Zero cases of something (BOD, BOB and I.I) cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus'.
3.It would be helpful to keep in mind that in real life, in 2020, we cannot meet or see someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.
4.So if we are talking about salvation outside the Church we refer to something known only to God.
5.Similarly if we say there are exceptions to EENS and the Athanasius Creed we refer to something known only to God.
Now keep these five points in mind and re-read Vatican Council IIl
Re-read the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).
Ask yourself why did the LOHO assume that BOD and I.I are exceptions to EENS ? Did they confuse what was invisible as being visible ?
Ask yourself why did the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II mention LG 8, LG 14, LG16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc ? Did they assume they were visible cases ?
Remember for 19 years Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the popes, did not lift the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney - and Cardinal Cushing was active at Vatican Council II.
Pope John XXIII did not lift the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney, why ? Did he want the world to believe that invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to EENS ?
Why did not Pope Paul VI and the cardinals simply asssume that there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of EENS ?
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc referred to invisible and hypothetical cases and so could not be exceptions to EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church ? Are they exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology for you ?
So what if Congar,Rahner ,Bea, Murray and Ratzinger were there at Vatican Council II ? It required only one person to bring out the truth in public.The Council supports the strict interpretation of EENS. The Council is Feeneyite.
It only required one person to announce that UR 3 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict the past ecumenism.UR 3 cannot be the basis for a New Ecumenism in which Christians do not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
It required only one person to announce that LG 8 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.
Why did every one mix up what is invisible as being visible and then reject Tradition ?
So many religious, men and women, lost their vocation because of Vatican Council II intepreted with the false premise.They chose not to be priests and nuns any more.They thought the Church had changed. Everything had changed.
Though when I read Vatican Council II I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible. So there are no objective exceptions to 16th century EENS. Invisible people cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
The Church still teaches, for me, according to Vatican Council II, that all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7).Vatican Council II is orthodox and there are no exceptions to this orthodoxy.
So they did make a mistake at Vatican Council II and in the LOHO.The mistake sas to be rejected by us and Vatican Council II re-interpreted with the false premise. Then we are back to the old ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. This is easily achieved when the false premise is avoided.-Lionel Andrades