Monday, November 7, 2016

Where was Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Where was Pope Pius XII in 1949?

Comments from The Remnant Newspaper

While I would admit that there are elements of Vatican II which were deliberately
 termed with ambiguity so-as to allow the progressives room to implement their 
changes, many modernist and heretical notions have been introduced by Vatican
 II, such as ecumenism and religious liberty. 
The ambiguity comes with the use of an irrational
 premise and interpretation in the Letter of the Holy Office
1949.It was  carried over into Vatican Council II. It is an
objective error.
This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit in Vatican 
Council II.
Yes, with this ambiguity progressives have room
 to implement changes.Doctrinally and pastorally 
they are teaching heresy.
In "A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae", Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci
 and others stated that the Novus Ordo, "both as a whole and in its details, a
striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated
 in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent."
Yes!It is a different theology. It is not a Catholic 
theology. It is an innovation. It leads to heresy. It 
is good that the SSPX has rejected this interpretation
 of Vatican Council II with this new theology.But
 they must choose the alternative and not just keep
 rejecting Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).
There is a choice for all Catholics.We can interpret
 Vatican Council II without this new theology and 
then the Council will be traditional.The progressives
 will not find any citations in the Council.
Cardinal Ottaviani did not know what caused the
 new theology and ecclesiology. He himself was 
using the irrational premise and conclusion. He 
had accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So did Archbishop Lefebvre.
The new theology comes from the Letter of the
 Holy Office 1949 which assumed that the baptism
 of desire referred to objectively known cases in 
the present times,cases of people saved without the 
baptism of water. So a connection was made with the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).What 
was specualtive was considered real and defacto. 
This derailed the old theology.How could a connection
 be mae between an invisible case and the teaching on
 all needing to be incorporated into the Church as 
members for salvation. All need to physically and 
visibly enter the Church for salvation and if there 
was an exception it would have to be visible and known.
So an innovation had now come into the Church and 
Cardinal Ottaviani did not notice it. Instead he 
criticised Fr. Leonard Feeney who was not saying
 anything new.
Archbishop Lefebvre said, "The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with
 piety and respect for the liturgical rules impregnated with the spirit of 
Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith."
He is referring to the new theology.
At the Council of Trent they still affirmed the
 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.
This was not so after 1949.The dogma was eliminated
 in 1960-65 with the irrational pemise. LG 16 was 
supposed to refer to known and visible cases saved in
 invincible ignorance and without the baptism of 
water..So the Novus Ordo Mass was being offered 
with confusion in salvation theology.The new 
salvation theology said there is known salvation outside
 the Catholic Church. So Fr.Karl Rahner S.J put
 forward the Anonymous Christian theory and Pope 
Benedict XVI accepted it in the Catechism of the 
Catholic Church 846.It says all who are saved are 
saved through Jesus and the Church. It does not say 
all need to enter the Church for salvation. Cardinal 
Ratzinger was accomodating the baptism of desire 
etc as being explicit and as being exceptions to the
 the dogma EENS.So with these 'invisible visible' 
cases he too was saying like Rahner that there is 
salvation outside the Church. This is the cause of
the hermeneutic of rupture and he does not notice it.
In the face of such scandal and sacrilege, where was the outrage? 
There was no outrage since no one knew ( or said 
so in public) that the cause for the confusion was
 there in the interpretation of Vatican Council II 
and that there is a traditional choice.No one was 
choosing the traditional option. Now that the monks
 at Norcia know about it, do you think they would be
 allowed to interpret Vatican Council II in harmony
 with Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology?!
I doubt it.The whole world will come swooping 
down on them. 
Image result for photo of where were you?
Only silence except for the voices and actions of a few brave men. Today
we find ourselves the children of this unprecedented deception.
Unprecedented deception! I agree with you!
Where was Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the 
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Where
 was Pope Pius XII in 1949?
Did they not notice the bad philosophy and 
Only through the complete abrogation of the Novus Ordo and full restoration
of the Traditional Latin Mass, will we begin the process to removing modernism
from the Church.
The fault is not there with liturgy but ecclesiology.
Once we identify the irrational premise and avoid it
 we are back to the old ecclesiology, without doing 
anything new.With the ecclesiology, based on Feeneyite
 EENS, there can only be an ecumenism of return and
 we can interpret the hypothetical references in Vatican
 Council II (UR 3, NA 2, LG 8, LG 16 etc) as just being
 hypothetical and imaginary and so they cannot be 
explicit exceptions in 2016 to the old ecclesiology.
So we would have the old ecclesiology, the only
 rational theology, at the Novus Ordo Mass and the
Tradtional Latin Mass.

-Lionel Andrades

No comments: