Sunday, February 14, 2016

Cardinal Ottaviani was a Cushingite like Pope John XXIII.Those who participated in the Council of Florence were Feeneyites -1

Louie Verrecchio uses an irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II and so do the liberal theologians and the present Vatican Curia. Now he has cited many people who think like him, who make the same factual error in the intepretation.This assures Louie that he is correct. He has been so conditioned to think in one way, the way of the popes and Archbishop Lefebvre in error, that he cannot think 'out of the box'  and reason rationally.This is a big problem in the Catholic Church and Louie is only repeating the common thinking which also happens to be magisterial.

Vatican II: Concilium contra 

Papa Ratti – Part One

 Louie  February 11, 2016  
Papa Ratti
The Second Vatican Council represents a departure from tradition so severe that Yves Congar, an influential figure among the architects of the revolt, once boastfully described it thus:

“The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution.”
Lionel: Yves Congar!! He has to cite Congar to justify his irrational thinking.
In addition to being an assault against tradition in the most general sense, however, Vatican II was also in many ways an offensive against the legacy of Pope Pius XI in particular, beginning with the events leading up to its calling.
Lionel: It is 'an assault against tradition' ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) only when the irrational premise and inference, of Fr.Yves Congar and the Jesuits, is also made by Louie Verrecchio.
I omit the irrationality.So Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition.
Writing in the inaugural encyclical of his pontificate, Ubi Arcano Dei ConsilioPope Pius XI touched briefly on the possibility of reconvening the Vatican Ecumenical Council (now commonly known as the First Vatican Council or Vatican I), stating:
We scarcely dare to include, in so many words, in the program of Our Pontificate the reassembling of the Ecumenical Council which Pius IX, the Pontiff of Our youth, had called but had failed to see through except to the completion of a part, albeit most important, of its work. We as the leader of the chosen people must wait and pray for an unmistakable sign from the God of mercy and of love of His holy will in this regard.
In this, two important points demand our attention:
First, as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church Militant, the Holy Catholic Church on earth, Pope Pius XI did not shy away in the least from identifying his flock, the children of said Church, as the “chosen people.”
Lionel: Vatican Council II itself refers to the Church as 'the new people of God' (Nostra Aetate 4).  Louie Verrecchio never mentions this on his blog.It would possibly be offensive to those who have had their religious formation under Archbishop Lefebvre.
Viewed through the eyes of tradition, the Holy Father’s statement is rather unremarkable, and yet after having been conditioned by fifty-plus years of theologically dubious pro-Semitic political correctness at the hands of faithless prelates, there can be little doubt that many a Catholic in our day would find these words perplexing at best, and perhaps even more likely, arrogant.
We’ll return to this topic momentarily.
Secondly, it is clear that Pope Pius XI did not imagine that the decision to reassemble, or not, the Vatican Council (which had yet to be formally closed) was simply a matter of administration and the purview of mere men. Rather, he understood that the gravity of the matter demanded faithful deferment to the Divine will; even going so far as to express a certain hesitance to act apart from “an unmistakable sign” from God!
Note well that the question here did not concern the calling of a new council, but rather the reassembly of an existing, albeit suspended, ecumenical council – one that was, like those that had preceded it, dogmatic in character; i.e., an act of the Supreme Magisterium clearly intended to define the faith and to bind the faithful.
Lionel:  Yes Vatican Council II interpreted with the premise and inference supports the traditional faith.It is not something new. The premise-inference is the innovation which makes the Council a break with Tradition.
Just months after the promulgation of his first encyclical, Pope Pius XI initiated a formal process of consultation with his cardinals on the matter of reassembling the council, beginning with a secret consistory held on 23 May 1923. [See Joseph Komonchak, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII and the idea of an Ecumenical Council)
Eventually, the process expanded to include input from the world’s bishops, but that “unmistakable sign” from God apparently never came to Papa Ratti; the materials collected during this period of inquiry were consigned to the private papal library, and the question was left to his successor.
The mindset of Pope Pius XII in the matter, and likewise his closest advisors, was similar to that of the previous pontificate; it was simply a given that a reconvened Vatican Council, should such a decision be made, would necessarily undertake the task of issuingdefinitions.
In an address given in October 1959, Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini, who was a protagonist in favor of reopening the Vatican Council under both Pius XII and John XXIII, said:
From the Vatican Council down to today, the Supreme Pontiffs, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII, day by day followed the developments of civic and social life in every area, intervening at appropriate times, with wondrous wisdom and heroic courage, to enlighten the minds and strengthen the wills of the shepherds of souls and of the faithful. The coming Council—should it [be believed] opportune–could stamp their principal teachings with that definitive value which would place them above and beyond all discussion. [ibid.]
You see, to the minds of faithful churchmen like Cardinals Ruffini and Ottaviani, who likewise favored the idea of a council (be it either a reassembly of Vatican I or a new council), the value of such a magisterial expression lied in what they presumed would be its dogmatic clarity – providing, to quote Cardinal Ruffini once more, “that definitivevalue which would place” the papal magisterium of the previous century “above and beyond all discussion.”
Lionel:  ''the papal magisterium of the previous century" is affirmed in Vatican Council II. The Council affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries.It uses the Feeneyite model.
The confusion arises in the interpretation of the Council ,since Cushingite statements and thinking from the 1949 Boston Case, have been placed in Vatican Council II. So for example, the text of Ad Gentes 7 says all need to enter the Church with faith and baptism for salvation.It means all need to be formal members of the Church ( with faith and baptism). This is  Feeneyite. It is orthodox and acceptable.
But then Ad Gentes 7 also has a Cushingite statement. It mentions those saved in inculpable ignorance. It is assumed these invincible ignorance cases are saved without the baptism of water.This  was the understanding in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and the Baltimore Catechism (1891).This innovation should not have been there in 1891 and 1949. Since  there are no such known cases in real life.
Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits did a good job. They fooled the whole Church, Louie Verrecchio included.
Every one assumes, Louie included. that the Cushingite passage refers to a known case and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they all assume  Vatican Council II is a break with the ''the papal magisterium of the previous century." They then begin to criticize the Council as Louie does.
For me the Cushingite passage refers to a hypothetical case and a hypothetical case cannot contradict the Feeneyite passage. It is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Cardinal Cushing, the Holy Office and the Jesuits made it relevant and Pope John XXIII and the other popes did not issue a clarification !
So Louie and the liberals and the Curia interpret Vatican Council II as being Cushingite i.e with having known exceptions to the dogma.Then they assume the Council is a break with Tradition. This is exactly how Yves Congar among the liberals and Fr.John Hardon among the conservatives,interpret the Council. It is with the error of Cushingism.They use an irrational premise and inference.
After entering into solemn consultation with their cardinals, and others, over a period of years in order to discern the relative wisdom of convening (or reassembling) a council for this very purpose, as we now know, both Pius XI and Pius XII thought the better of it.
Enter Pope John XXIII – a man whose treatment of this profoundly important matter stood in rather stark contrast to that of his predecessors; not only as it concerns the decision that was made, but just as importantly, the process of deciding.

While celebrating Holy Mass at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls on January 25, 1959, with seventeen cardinals present, the “good Pope John,” as he was affectionately known by some, dropped a veritable bombshell by announcing his plan to convene the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.
The cardinals in attendance were stunned to say the very least. The new pope of less-than-90-days hadn’t bothered to consult them; much less did he undertake a process of discernment similar to that of his predecessors.
Lionel: Remember the new pope was a Cushingite. The Jewish Left was Cushingite. The Archdiocese of Boston was supporting Cushingism and so were the Jesuits.So they allowed the Cushingite passages to be placed in Vatican Council II and the Council appears as a break with Tradition for the Cushingites.This is the magisterial mind set even today.
But Cushingism has its limits.One only has to say hypothetical cases are not explicit, exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. That would be the end of the power of Cushingism to confuse.
More shocking still, and unbeknownst to those who were present at the time, even as Pope John spoke, media outlets around the world were breaking news of the Council’s calling.
Lionel: They were interpretating the Council with Cusningism. So Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
As a result, any intentions the cardinals may have had to consult with the Holy Father on the matter moving forward were effectively put to rest; by the time they left the church building, it was already too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Lionel: They could have still 'put the toothpaste back in the tube' if they interpreted the Council with Feeneyism as I do. It can be done even today.We return back to Tradition.
If not the result of a deliberate process of careful consideration, one wonders, what exactly was the impetus for calling the Council?
This, I’m afraid, remains a topic of some confusion; especially in the minds of those who prefer denial to anything that might sully the legend of the jovial Papa Roncalli.
Addressing the assembly of bishops on October 11, 1962, the Second Vatican Council’s opening day, Pope John recalled the day of its announcement some three years earlier, saying:
As regards the initiative for the great event which gathers us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical documentation our personal account of the first sudden bringing up in our heart and lips of the simple words, “Ecumenical Council.” We uttered those words in the presence of the Sacred College of Cardinals on that memorable January 25, 1959, the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, in the basilica dedicated to him.
It was completely unexpected, like a flash of heavenly light, shedding sweetness in eyes and hearts … We might say that heaven and earth are united in the holding of the Council — the saints of heaven to protect our work, the faithful of the earth continuing in prayer to the Lord, and you, seconding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order that the work of all may correspond to the modern expectations and needs of the various peoples of the world.
If one were to take these words to heart, it would seem that the “unmistakable sign” for which Pius XI prayed had finally arrived, and unexpectedly so, just over half-a-century later, and this during the earliest days of a new pontificate no less.
Further solidifying this impression in the eyes of papal historians is a private journal entry dated September 16, 1959, wherein John XXIII writes of that infamous January day, “I was the first to be surprised at my proposal.” [Professor Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (right), pg. 92]
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit… A surprise from Heaven… Completely unexpected…
It’s the stuff of a made-for-TV movie, but the question remains:
Is it truth, or is it fiction?
In a 1959 interview with the Italian Weekly, Epoca, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani spoke about the upcoming Council shortly after it was announced:
He [Roncalli] had spoken about it to me from the moment of his election. Or, rather, to be more precise, it was I who visited him in his little room at the conclave on the eve of the election. Among other things, I told him, “Your Eminence, it is necessary to think about a council.” Cardinal Ruffini, who was present at the conversation, was of the same mind. Cardinal Roncalli adopted this idea and later had this to say, “I have thought of a council from the moment when I became pope.” [ibid., pg. 96]
Lionel: There already was an innovation in the Church in 1949 and it was official. This was something new in the Church. They had discarded the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They placed the innovation in Vatican Council II and assumed that there was no going back to the old ecclesiology based on the old interpretation of the dogma EENS. They did not realize that there are no personally known exceptions to the dogma EENS , and that hypothethical cases could not be defacto exceptions and so their ruse would be discovered over time.  _______________________
If this alone isn’t enough to call into question subsequent claims of divine inspiration, consider the testimony of Abbé Roger Poelman concerning a conversation that he had with his mentor, Dom Lambert Beauduin – a close friend and confidant of Cardinal Roncalli.
As recalled by Poelman, Beauduin assured himeven as Pius XII reigned:
Lionel: Both seemed unaware of the Cushing heresy.They still had not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

If Cardinal Ottaviani’s recollection is accurate, and there is every reason to believe that it is, Cardinal Angelo Roncalli had it in mind to call a council even prior to his elevation to the papacy.

He [the Holy Father] will die very soon. His successor will be Roncalli … You will see. He will hold a council and will do so in an ecumenical perspective. [ibid., pg. 87]
Lionel: An ecumenical process is not a problem unless the interpretation is with Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism.
And then there is this diary entry, also written by the hand of Pope John XXIII (initially on January 15, 1959, and then curiously reentered on January 20, 1959):
In an audience with Secretary of State Tardini, for the first time, and, I would say, as though by chance, I happened to mention the word “council,” as if to say what the new pope could propose as an invitation to an enormous movement of spirituality for Holy Church and for the world … “Oh! Oh? [Tardini replied] That’s an idea, right? This is a luminous and holy idea. It comes right from heaven…”[ibid., pg. 87]
Apparently, the pope liked the sound of that “right from heaven” idea – so much so that he would later repeat it at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls just days later.
He may have perhaps even come to believe it, but whatever the initiative for convening Vatican Council II may have been, two things are now certain:
One, Roncalli’s council would not be a continuation of the previously suspended Vatican Council, and secondly, it would not stamp the expressions of “wondrous wisdom” contained in the papal magisterium that followed “with that definitive value which would place them above and beyond all discussion” as Cardinal Ruffini and other defenders of tradition had hoped.
Lionel: Pope Roncalli's Cushingite Council is a continuation of  the Feeneyite Vatican Council I (1868), when the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was interpreted with Feeneyism( i.e there are no explicit exceptions) as in previous Councils before 1868.
In fact, this council and the pope who called it would take positions opposed to said wisdom; most notably as it concerns that of Pope Pius XI.
The following less-than-exhaustive list subjects and their treatment stand out as prime examples of a Concilium contra Papa Ratti worthy of closer examination:
The “Chosen People,” Ecumenism, Communism and Religious Liberty.
The “Chosen People”
As the previously referenced encyclical of Pius XI indicates, there was no question in the Holy Father’s mind (much less the sensus ecclesiae) as to who the “chosen people” are – they are the children of the Church; certainly not those who have rejected Christ.
Lionel : Louie Verrecchio still does not quote Nostra Aetate 4 and its reference to the Church being the new people of God.Still!? Why not?
Offensive though it may sound to certain post-conciliar ears even to the highest places in Rome, this is the case thanks to the Jews having relinquished their formerly chosen status by rejecting the Chooser:
He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
In 1928, Pope Pius XI underscored the point when he “approved, confirmed, and ordered to be published” a decree of the Holy Office abolishing an association known as “AmiciIsrael” (Friends of Israel), the reasons for which we will discuss momentarily.
In this decree, the status of the Jewish people with respect to their relative “choseness” is made rather plain as evidenced in the following excerpt:
The Most Eminent Fathers [of the Holy Office], who are charged with safeguarding faith and morals, acknowledged before all else its [Amici Israel] praiseworthy intention of urging the faithful to pray to God and to toil on behalf of the Israelites’ conversion to the Kingdom of Christ. The Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of divine promises up until the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness.
Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as ‘anti-Semitism.’
In addition to putting the lie to allegations of a pre-conciliar Church that willingly institutionalized anti-Semitism, one does well to note the two key points of long-since settled Catholic doctrine that are mentioned:
– The “Israelites” (self-identified Jews) stand in need of conversion to the Kingdom of Christ; that is, the Holy Catholic Church, and she therefore considers it part and parcel of her mission to labor to that end.
– Upon the arrival of Jesus Christ, their long-awaited Messiah, the Israelites who were “once chosen” ceased to be so by virtue of their rejection of Him; likewise, they were at one time the depository of divine promises, but are no more.
Lionel: This is reflected in Nostra Aetate 4.Louie has not noticed it.
As for the reasons given by the Holy Office (then under the Secretariat of Servant of God Cardinal Merry del Val) for abolishing Amici Israel, the decree cited its “plan of acting and communicating at variance with the sense of the Church, the mind of the holy Fathers of the Church, and the sacred liturgy.”
One such plan of acting that was central to the efforts of Amici Israel concerned a formal request, submitted by the organization to the Holy See, asking that the allegedly anti-Semitic prayer in the Good Friday liturgy for perfidiam Judaicam (the perfidious Jews) be replaced with one simply for plebem Judaicam (the Jewish people).
That proposal was denied; presumably for the selfsame reasons that were provided by the Holy Office in its decree abolishing Amici Israel itself.
Pope John XXIII took a different and decidedly contra Papa Ratti approach to the matter:
Whereas the latter invited the informed counsel of the Holy Office, the former took it upon himself to act unilaterally; one might even fairly say impetuously.
According to a brief history of the Good Friday prayer provided by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB:
On Good Friday 1959 in St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope John XXIII omitted the words perfidis and judaicam perfidiam, without having announced any reformist intentions beforehand. The Congregation for Rites (predecessor to today’s Congregation for Divine Worship) decided later in 1959 that henceforth these words were to be omitted.
One is hard pressed not to recognize in Pope John’s actions a regrettable precedent for the liturgically cavalier behavior demonstrated by the current Bishop of Rome; specifically as it concerns his treatment of the ritual washing of the feet on Maundy Thursday:
Introduce an on-the-spot liturgical innovation over and against what is prescribed in the Missal, only to have the abuse officially approved at a later date.
This highhanded, previously unannounced, revision of the Good Friday prayer wouldn’t be the only time Pope John XXIII would forgo the advisement of the Holy Office before acting on such gravely serious matters.
In fact, in pursuing his desire to supplant the Church’s traditional, doctrinally-founded, stance toward the Jews (as well as heretics and schismatics) in favor of adopting a more diplomatic posture, he would eventually come to treat the Holy Office as something of an adversary.
Lionel: In 1949 the Holy Office said the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, even when there were no known exceptions known in 1949 or before.No one could have physically seen or known a person saved without the baptism of water.Yet this was the new teaching approved by the Holy Office.
Then the same teaching was placed in Vatican Council II.This was magisterial heresy since it rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, changed the Nicene Creed (I believe in two more baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water) and then interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality( with Cushingism). All this is still approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is the theology of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict , Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Ladaria S.J, Archbishop Di Noia and Mons. Guido Pozzo.
Upon being approached in March of 1960 by Cardinal Augustin Bea with the idea of creating a “Pontifical Commission to promote the unity of Christians,” Pope John, delighted with its ecumenical aims, replied:
Commissions have their own traditions. Let us call this new organism a ‘secretariat.’ That way you will not be connected to any tradition: you will be freer. [Professor Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, pg. 131]
The move effectively granted the newly established secretariat an enviable degree of autonomy; placing it directly in service to the pope; thereby shielding it from the long arm of Cardinal Ottaviani, Secretary of the Holy Office, who also served as head of the Theological Commission that was charged with preparing texts for the upcoming council.
Lionel: Cardinal Ottaviani also approved the Cushingite interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office.He was a Cushingite like Pope John XXIII. We must remember that those who participated in the Council of Florence  and subsequent Councils over the centuries, were Feeneyites. For them there was  no baptism of desire which was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
jules isaac book
Several months later, in June of 1960, Pope John XXIII received in audience the French Jewish historian and activist Jules Marx Isaac, who the previous year had published the book, The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, wherein he audaciously called for a “reformulation of Christian teaching, preaching and catechesis.”

The allegations leveled by Isaac against the Catholic Church, made evident enough in the title to his book, met with the Holy Father’s sympathy.
Pope John then instructed Isaac to present his requests to Cardinal Bea, the scope of whose secretariat would eventually expand at the Council in order to undertake the “Jewish question” and other interreligious matters.
According to Professor De Mattei, the meeting between John XXIII and Jules Isaac had a profound impact on the pope, and was “the main inspiration for the document on relations between Christianity and Jews” of Vatican II, Nostra Aetate. [ibid., pg. 373]
Fast forward to today:
The immutable truths concerning the status of the Jewish people that Pius XI sought to safeguard, with due consideration given to the Holy Office’s wise counsel, were subsequently turned upside down in the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) produced by Roncalli’s Council (then under the headship of his successor, Pope Paul VI).
Lionel:No it has not been turned upside down if you use Feeneyism as an interpretation.Louie is using Cushingism just like the later Cardinal Bea. Let Cardinal Kaspar and Koch use Cushingism if they must but Louie can interpret Vatican Council II with Feneeyism.
So much had Bea’s secretariat succeeded in operating unconnected to any tradition, as was Pope John’s intent, Nostra Aetate is currently being leveraged in our day as justification for the entirely novel idea that the Church has no mission to the Jews, along with assurances that they continue to be “God ’s chosen and beloved people,” their salvation in no way put in jeopardy simply because they reject Jesus Christ!
Lionel: This is the position of the Jewish Left and they demand that the Church follow it, because of their political and military strength. But why must Louie and the SSPX traditionalists do the same? They can intepret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Then the Council will be in harmony with the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There will be no change in ecclesiology. The old ecclesiology said non Catholics and non Christians need to convert for salvation.
We will conclude our examination of the Concilum contra Papa Ratti in Part Two - Louie Verrecchio
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: