Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger.

Bishop Fellay clarifies relations with Rome

Bishop Fellay 3-2016

AKA Catholic

Louie Verrecchio:
On the contrary; Bishop Fellay gives us every reason to believe that he is determined to carry out the mission of the Society as described in Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration:
“We hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.”
Lionel: This includes the new theology. Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II  with the new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger.
He was also excommunicated  for ordaining bishops and for not accepting Vatican Council II interpreted with the new theology.
He was not aware of the new theology.Neither did the magisterium inform him about it. There was a choice.No one told him about it.
With the new theology the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was discarded.It was done with an irrationality, an irrational inference.This resulted in a change of doctrine and practise in liturgy, catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church.It brought in a modernist influence in the Church on a wide scale.It all can be overturned with one action.A change in concept.
As Bishop de Galarreta said in his conference:
‘You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal.’ Such is not our position.
Lionel: If the irrationality which is the basis of the new theology is identified, then the Vatican can be asked to interpret Vatican Council II without the error. This will result in changes in all areas of the Church. There is an opportunity for Rome(Vatican) to come back to the Faith.

It is important to repeat it: it was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. He signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome. And at that time, even when he broke it off after the protocol, the Archbishop said: ‘it is because the necessary conditions for our protection, for our survival, are not there.’ Because they wish to deceive us, because they do not wish to give us Tradition, because they wish to bring us over to Vatican II...
Lionel: He means Vatican Council II interpreted with the new theology.

In other words, Archbishop Lefebvre insisted upon two things: First, and most obviously, he would never agree to anything that went against the Faith, and secondly, the Society must be sufficiently assured of its protection moving forward.
Lionel: By faith, he meant faith interpreted with the new theology.

Fidelity to this whole treasure of the Church which—God knows why, God knows how—is in our hands, an extraordinary heritage which is the treasure of the Church; it does not belong to us, and our only desire is for it to regain its place, its true place in the Church.
Lionel: By Church, he means the contemporary Church interpreted with the new theology.If the new theology is omitted then the conclusion, the result, would be different.This can be checked out any time. For example, Vatican Council II can be interpreted with or without the new theology and the result will obviously be different.It will be traditional or non traditional. 

This, my friends, is the perspective of a true son of the Church, an authentic shepherd and dedicated father.
Lionel: It is another example of a bishop unaware of the new theology which  he uses to interpret magisterial documents like Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 etc. He uses a false premise.Then with this premise he reasons rationally.An onlooker would not notice anything. Since the onlooker would see that the reasoning is rational. He would not know that the premise was being able to physically see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water. Or knowing of people on earth who will die and go  to Heaven without the baptism of water.
The Lord has in some way entrusted to the Society, initially by way of its saintly founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the task of both preserving the great treasure of the Church’s inheritance, and laboring to restore it, to the fullest extent possible, to its rightful place in the heart of the Church for the good of souls.
Lionel: He made a mistake when he accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.This Letter  assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the traditional, centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Adversary has corrupted the hearts and minds of many in the sacred hierarchy, even to the highest places in Rome, and he is determined to see the Society fail so as to succeed in dragging countless more souls to Hell.
Lionel: The new theology is being promoted by the sacred hierarchy.
No, the tragic events in Brussels do not represent “blind violence” as much as they are the fruits of a false religion; one that rejects Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, and is at war with His Church.
Lionel: With the new theology the SSPX and the Vatican is saying there are known exceptions in the present times, to all Muslims needing to enter the Church to avoid Hell. Without the new theology, they would have to say Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , as the 16th century missionaries interpreted the dogma on exclusive salvation.
Pope Francis, not unlike his predecessors, apparently does not care to acknowledge “what Heaven demands, the intention of Heaven declared at Fatima.”
Lionel: At Fatima, Our Lady said the dogma of the faith will be lost. If the dogma of the faith to which she was referring to was extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is lost in the SSPX  and all who use the new theology of Rahner and Ratzinger. May be at some future time it will be revived in Portugal.
-Lionel Andrades


Why is Sanborn and Cekada using the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology?

Why are the sedevacantists Bishop Donald  Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada using the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology ? 
The new theology is based on known salvation outside the Church.It's foundation is assuming hypothetical cases are objective on earth.It is based on being able to physically see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.It assumes cases of the baptism of desire are known and visible not only to God-but also to man!.It assumes there are known cases of people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.It is upon all this irrationality that the new theology was supported by the theologians Rahner and Ratzinger.1
At the sedevancantist seminary in Florida,USA  they assume that the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). In other words it refers to known cases.This is the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.
Suppose they considered the baptism of desire as being known only to God and invisble in personal cases for us human beings, then it would not be relevant or an exception to EENS. Then there would also not be any exception in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) to the dogma EENS according to the 16 th centuries that Pope Benedict recently referred to.
What are traditionalist sedevacantist Catholics doing? Why are they supporting the theology of the liberals?-Lionel Andrades


You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see


Sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary Fl. since Oct. 10, 2015 does not clarify if in Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8) refers to persons visible or invisible.

Pope Benedict's heretical interview to Avvenire prepares Catholics to receive a sacrilegeous Synod report after Easter

Image result for Photo of Catholic  Pope FrancisSynodImage result for Photo of Cardinal Kasper
No one could have seen someone saved outside the Church without the baptism of water.So how could Rahner and Ratzinger support a new theology based on this irrationality. How could they asssume that someone saw a person saved outside the Church? There can be no empirical proof of salvation outside the Church so how can it be claimed for example, that the baptism of desire exists without the baptism of water and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
How can there be 'a development of doctrine' based on salvation outside the Church?
Cardinal Walter Kaspar once said in an interview that if ecclesiology can be changed then the teaching on the divorced receiving the Eucharist can also be changed.He  meant there was a development of doctrine and the dogma EENS was discarded.It was eliminated  with the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.This theology is based on there being salvation outside the Church.
So now when the Synod Report will be  issued after Easter, as Kaspar announced, it will say the divorced and remarried can receive the Eucharist.Then when the opposition asks where is the precedent for this action .Kaspar will cite the interview given by Pope Benedict XVI to Avvenire .The pope said the dogma EENS as the 16th century missionaries knew it no longer exists.It has been developed.It has been developed so much that the original meaning has been changed.
So if the dogma EENS can be changed or discarded, Kaspar will ask, then why not also other teachings of the Church?
Ecclesiology has been changed  since now marriages with Jews and other non Catholics are permitted. The couple is no more considered as being in mortal sin.There is known salvation outside the Church according to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology. So the Jew is not outside the Church and the Catholic in that marriage is not living in adultery.
The popes no more say that in inter faith marriages the Catholic is living in adultery and mortal sin. Instead a 'dispensation' is given by a bishop who usually does not beleive in the dogma EENS.
 The traditionalists and sedevacantists too accept the new theology, which is responsible for this change in ecclesiology.They say there is known salvation outside the Church. So there was no opposition to the Pope Benedict  denial of the dogma EENS.
 Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Polish Curia and Bishop Athanasius Schneider have not opposed Pope Benedict's statement which was a denial of a dogma. It was the rejection of a doctrine.Since it is acceptable for them too that there is no more a dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church, since there is known salvation outside the Church as the new theology says.
Instead they should have protested.There cannot be a development of doctrine on EENS, since there is no known salvation outside the Church, there cannot be known salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
There was not a single objection to the change in Catholic doctrine.
Now the popes and the political Left, want a big compromise on the Eucharist.So Cardinal Kaspar and Pope Benedict will say that if ecclesiology can be changed with a  defined dogma being set aside and this has been accepted by the traditionalists, including the SSPX, then why not the doctrine and practise of giving the Eucharist to persons in mortal sin also not be changed?
Perhaps Pope Benedict's heretical announcement,was a preparation for announcing sacrilege approved by the 'Synod Fathers', who all believe there is known salvation outside the Church. So for them the Apostles , the Church Fathers and Medieval Fathers, the popes and saints over the centuries, were all wrong, they made a mistake. They did not know that there was known salvation outside the Church when they supported the dogmatic teaching.They supported a dogma which is the basis of an exclusivist ecclesiology, the non-separation of Church and state, the need for non Catholics and non Christians to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell, the need for Catholics to marry only Catholics ....-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Z approves of adultery in inter faith marriages
You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see.

Rahner's Anonymous Christian is main line Catholic theology : coming back full circle