Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Pope Benedict changed 'the rule of faith' : lex credendi of the Traditional Latin Mass was suppressed


Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

From the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist :
"Guest editorial: Fiat continuity and the case of Papa Ratzinger"
JM said...
David Young: The heretical ideas of Ratzinger are not one liners, but entire approaches.See James Larson. His diagnoses are awfully hard to protest.

Home


Article 8: A Sobering Assessment

A Sobering Assessment - James Larson 
If we think deeply about it, we must see that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews embodies many elements which are at the heart of what the Mass is all about. Its suppression would be entirely in keeping with Pope Benedict's statement in the Motu Proprio that the two forms of the Mass will enrich one another. This alteration in the Traditional Mass would be in accord with the rule of faith now governing the Church, but would amount to a suppression of the lex credendi of which the Traditional Mass is the expression...
Lionel:
The rule of faith has been changed. Since Pope Benedict replaced the traditional theology of Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma.The baptism of desire is not  hypothetical but an objective exception).So the lex credendi had been changed by him.
__________________________


We must realize, above all else, that Pope Benedict XVI believes in the reforms of Vatican II...
the irreconcilable differences in the rules of faith and prayer. The fact is that unless Benedict XVI is fully converted to the traditional approach to the Catholic faith, we can reasonably expect the Mass to be altered and "essentialized."
Lionel:
Yes the Traditional Mass has been altered with a new rule of faith, a new lex credendi.This was done with Cushingism.Cushingism is based on an irrational premise. With the irrational premise a new theology was created.This is really modernism has James Larson rightly observes.Pope Benedict rejects the Syllabus of Errors.
___________________________
If this is to happen, it might very likely start with the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Such a prayer is in severe contradiction with sector #3 mentioned in the Pope's address to the Curia. In part, it states:
"In particular, [standing] before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel."
Pope Benedict has made it abundantly clear that, according to his rule of faith, such a relationship does not involve conversion.
Lionel:
The Pope has made it clear that Jews do not need to convert in the present times. This contradicts the Bible.Pope Benedict has also made it clear that Jews do not need to convert formally into the Church since he has replaced the new old theology with irrational Cushingism.This is heresy.
__________________________
In my exchange with Michael Davies in the pages of Christian Order, I made the following statement: "Would it not be the final irony if Satan was able to draw the 'elect' into a denial of the Catholic Faith through their attachment of the Mass?"
Lionel:
Today the FSSP offers the Traditional Mass with the new ecclesiology based on Cushingism.The SSPX also offers the Traditional Mass with confusion. They affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but theologically they also accept the baptism of desire etc as an exception to the dogma.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate cannot offer the Traditional Latin Mass since they affirm the old ecclesiology, like the SSPX, but they too, consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions to the dogma EENS.This is the stuff of the new theology.This is also Pope Benedict's understanding of faith.
So we have the denial of the Catholic Faith by the FSSP, the SSPX and the F.I and Pope Benedict.
_________________________________

Interestingly enough, some of those very people who just a short time ago were calling Cardinal Ratzinger a liar and deceiver over his "revelation" and interpretation of the Third Secret of Fatima, or were accusing him of promoting the heresy of indifferentism in his ecumenical statements concerning the Jewish "Covenant", are now "down in adoration" over Summorum Pontificum. And yet, we are still dealing with the same man who apparently possesses the same lex credendi – as seen to be operative in the Pope's Christmas, 2005 address to the curia, or as evidenced by images of a Pope praying in a Mosque in Turkey. And it is this same Pope who has laid down the principle that the Mass must conform to this rule of faith.
Lionel:
Correct! Both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis are liberal, they are Cushingites, they support the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology.For Pope Francis too the Traditional Mass is 'ideological' if it accompanies the old ecclesiogy( Feeneyite).So the Traditional Latin Mass is now flourishing in the dioceses of liberal bishops, since it is accompanied with the new Cushingite theology. The Traditional Latin Mass now conforms to this new 'rule of faith'.Lex credendi has been changed though the liturgy is the same.
_____________________________________________

Article 9: Triumph or Chaos

Triumph or Chaos - James Larson 

"Nonetheless, it is still true that the great legacy of the Council, which opened a new road, is a 'magna carta' of the Church's path, very essential and fundamental."
The first thing we should understand, consequently, is that this Pope is absolutely committed to Vatican II, and that he does not intend Summorum Pontificum as some sort of major historical turning point back towards tradition. Benedict XVI considers Vatican II to be the "great charter" for the Church's path into the future.
Lionel:
Pope Benedict did not realize that the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective error and this objective error is repeated in Vatican Council II. This objective error is the basis of the new theology, which he Rahner, Congar, Dupuis, Kung, Kasper and others supported at Vatican Council II.
There are superfluous passages  in Vatican Council II which comes from the factual mistake made in 1949.It was an error to refer to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 14, AG 7) since they were irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are also not exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.Someone made a mistake at Vatican Council II !!
Similarly when UR 3 refers to those saved in imperfect communion with the Church this is a hypothetical case. There is no such known case.UR 3 cannot be considered an exception or relevant to the dogma EENS or the Syllabus of Errors. It should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. Someone made a mistake!
The mistake in principle, in Vatican Council II, is it indicates that hypothetical cases are not just hypothetical but that they are explicit. It then permits the inference of these explicit cases being exceptions to the dogma EENS.The Syllabus of Errors also becomes obsolete.
_________________________________

Secondly, the Pope offers us a solution for understanding and properly living out these "difficulties" which we have encountered on this "new road:"
"Along this road, we must grow with patience and we must now, in a new way, learn what it means to renounce triumphalism."
Lionel:
He has rejected the dogma EENs.In the Catechism of the Catholic Church,the liberal Cardinal Ratzinger who accepts Cushingism as a theology, calls EENS 'an aphorism'(CCC 846).
___________________________________ 
Triumphalism? It was a word that was fairly common when I converted 27 years ago, but I haven't heard it used for years. Why now? And what does the Pope mean when he says that we must learn "in a new way" what it means to renounce it?
We will start with a good definition of triumphalism. Fr. Hardon gives us one in his Modern Catholic Dictionary:
"Triumphalism: A term of reproach leveled at the Catholic Church for the claim that she has the fullness of divine revelation and the right to pass judgment on the personal and social obligations of humankind."
I would consider this a very good definition. What is more, it very much characterizes Catholic teaching and belief up to Vatican II.
Lionel:
'Catholic teaching and belief up to Vatican II', this was when Feeneyism as a general theology was still common in the Catholic Church.With Vatican Council II the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was made official and popular.
__________________________________

So now there are two triumphalisms that must be renounced: the triumphalism of the past, and any triumphalism of the future. This means that any hope which conservative Catholics might entertain for a "springtime of the Church," in which the Church would once again appear "triumphant" is doomed to failure. Remembering our definition of triumphalism to be the belief that the Catholic Church has the fullness of divine revelation and the right therefore to pass judgment on the personal and social obligations of humankind, this renunciation of all triumphalism in effect denies the Gospel itself.
It is into the eye of this holocaust of his own making that Benedict XVI has now inserted the Traditional Latin Mass. We may choose to be optimistic by believing that, according to the alleged principle lex orandi, lex credendi (condemned by Pope Pius XII), the Mass will work as some sort of miraculous leaven to change the rule of faith now dominant in the Church. Or, we may believe that Pope Benedict will apply his "rule of faith" (which is integrally tied to "essentialization"), and the Mass will be changed.
Lionel:
His rule of faith, which is based on Cushingism has been applied to the Mass in all rites.If we are aware of it we can neutralize the error.Use Feeneyism as a theology.The Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass would then have the old ecclesiology, the 'triumphalistic ecclesiology'.
______________________________
The Traditional Mass is the supreme act of Catholic Triumphalism. I am convinced that Satan, having failed to eliminate it, will now seek to corrupt it from within. This is the strategy which he has used so successfully against the Church, and it makes perfect sense that this is now his stratagem for that which is the source and summit of all that is holy within the Church and in the world.
Lionel:
Cushingism has been imposed upong the Church. It is supported by the Left within and outside the Church.Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith did not point out that Cushingism is based on a  philosophical irrationality. He also did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that he could accept Vatican Council II with the theology of Feeneyism.Then the Council would not be a break with the old ecclesiology, the triumphalistic ecclesiology. Instead the Vatican approved the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre who offered the Latin Mass with the old ecclesiology, the ideological ecclesiology.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/parti-article8

You are still sending me links which say BOD is an exception to EENS.BOD was never an exception to EENS. It was never relevant to EENS.The liberal theologians made it relevant. They have interpreted BOD as being explicit instead of implicit




From the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist : 

""Saint Anthony, Hammer of Heretics, Help Us To Find Our Way Home To Heaven""

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire


That link is for the lurkers.

As for you, Lionel, it makes absolutely no sense to refer to exceptions to a heretical interpretation of Catholic Tradition - Feeneyism - nor does it make any sense to speak of hypothetical cases when Tradition teaches about specific cases but ABS also knows that Ideology can not be overcome by facts anymore than a delusion can be corrected by facts.

The plain and simple truth is that Feeeny was wildly heretical in his personal opinions about BOB and BOD and those who reconciled him to the church without first demanding he repudiate his heresy were acting out of emotionalism and reconciliation sans repudiation of his heresy has done severe damage to the Church and you are just an example of the walking wounded.





Lionel:
I have mentioned that the baptism of desire is not explicit and so is not an exception to the dogma EENS. 
Prof. Phillip Blosser understands this.This is simple reasoning. 
Tancred at The Eponymous Flower understands this. He has agreed with me in the comments section of the blog.
Now ABS you are still sending me another link which says BOD is an exception to EENS.I have read that link before. The sedevacantists and traditionalists have made a factual mistake there . BOD was never an exception to EENS. It was never relevant to EENS.The liberal theologians made it relevant. They have interpreted BOD as being explicit instead of implicit, objective instead of hypothetical. You are looking at this issue with their perspective.This new perspective was sadly approved by the magisterium in 1949.
_____________________________

That link is for the lurkers.

As for you, Lionel, it makes absolutely no sense to refer to exceptions to a heretical interpretation of Catholic Tradition - Feeneyism - nor does it make any sense to speak of hypothetical cases when Tradition teaches about specific cases but ABS also knows that Ideology can not be overcome by facts anymore than a delusion can be corrected by facts.

Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says there are exceptions to EENS and you accept it. It is you who infer that there are exceptions. 
For me the Letter 1949 like the Baltimore Catechism 1891 made a mistake. They were perhaps ideological with the Left.
____________________________

The plain and simple truth is that Feeeny was wildly heretical in his personal opinions about BOB and BOD and those who reconciled him to the church without first demanding he repudiate his heresy were acting out of emotionalism and reconciliation sans repudiation of his heresy has done severe damage to the Church and you are just an example of the walking wounded.
Lionel:
Either Fr. Feeney or Archbishop Cushing was in heresy.
One was affirming the dogma EENS as it was known for centuries. The other was saying there are exceptions.
The one who was saying there are exceptions, based on the irrational reasoning, was the one supported by the magisterium in 1949 until today. It was magisterial irrationality. It was a break with the magisterium of the centuries. It was magisterial heresy.You support it?
-Lionel Andrades

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=6728795498841273332

Objectively heretical writings of Pope Benedict XVI ?

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist




From  the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist : Guest editorial: Fiat continuity and the case of Papa Ratzinger
Guest editorial by Joseph Martin:
Blogger David Young said...
Could someone please post three "objectively heretical" statements in the writings of Ratzinger? I would be glad for the education.
Lionel:
It is objectively heretical to assume hypothetical cases are explicit in the present timesd and that these explicit cases are objective exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation, which is the de fide teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is an objective mistake of Pope Benedict and the consequences are a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, a change in the interpretation of the Nicene Creed and a rejection of Vatican Council II interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism and the hermeneutic of continuity.This is first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
This heresy can be traced in two papers of the International Theological Commission which was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. It is there in the recent statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the interview of Pope Benedict published in the daily newspaper Avvenire, before Amoris Laeititia was issued.
 -Lionel Andrades
Pope Benedict's Avvenire interview contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/pope-benedicts-avvenire-interview.html

When Pope Benedict 'breaks his silence' it usually is to please the Masons? 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/when-pope-benedict-breaks-his-silence.html

April 7,2014
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Pope Benedict XVI made a factual error : Analysis http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-and-pope.html#links

 APRIL 7, 2014

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Pope Benedict XVI made a factual error : Analysis

'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, cardinals and archbishops have not objected to this passage from Christianity and the World Religions by the International Theological Commission 1997.


There is a factual mistake here.
'the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16...')
Example Lumen Gentium 16 ? LG 16 is a possibility of salvation onlybut here it is implied that it is an exception to Tradition and so eccclesiology is no more ecclesiocentrism.(1)


 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and former President of the ITC has made a factual error here. It was approved by Pope Benedict XVI.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not acknowledged that there is an error here.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria led the Vatican team in the SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks. The SSPX's Fr.Jean Marie Gleize, who led the SSPX side, has made the same error in a book published by the SSPX in Italy.
1.
Apply the Three Common Sense Points:
1. There is no way that we can know of a particular person saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire because of its very nature. It is known only to God.
2. There is no text in Vatican Council II or the Catechism which claims we know of any such case.
3. So Vatican Council II and the Catechism do not contradict the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus-The Three Common Sense Points
The baptism of desire is a gift of God. We cannot claim that someone has received the Baptism of Desire this month. It cannot be administered.


2.
The two questions are:-

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2013 ? Answer: NO

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Answer: THERE ARE NONE. 


3.
CUSHINGISM OR FEENEYISM 
 VATICAN COUNCIL II
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times. We can physically see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846
FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. -

4.

An Example of the False Premise and the Conclusion.

Seeds of the Word (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II)

With the False Premise:
We can see non Catholics who have received salvation in 2014 with 'seeds of the Word'.
Conclusion: Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Vatican Council II contradicts itself. AG 7 - 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation contradicts AG 11- being saved with 'seeds of the Word'.
Without the False Premise.
Being saved with seeds of the Word is a possibility.
A possibility is not a known reality in a specific case in the present times, for us. A possibility is not an exception.
Seeds of the Word is not an exception.
Since it is not visible and known in a specific case in 2014 it is not relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
ConclusionVatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

5.
COLUMN A or COLUMN B
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e being saved with the seeds of the Word (AG 11), invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) can be interpreted with COLUMN A or COLUMN B



COLUMN A
Implicit or us.
hypothetical for us.
invisible.
dejure (in principle).
subjective.
COLUMN B
explicit for us.
known in reality.
visible in the flesh.
defacto (in fact).
objective.
If COLUMN B is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition.There are known exceptions. The dead-saved are visible. This is an irrational and common interpretation of Vatican Council II.
If COLUMN A is chosen in the interpretation then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.The Catholic Church's teaching on other religions and Christians communities and churches is the same before and after Vatican Council II.

6.


IN REAL LIFE
We cannot say any one specifically whom we meet is 'an exception' .While Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So every non Catholic whom we meet needs faith and baptism and we do not know a single exception, who will be saved without faith and baptism.
When we meet a non Catholic we know he is oriented to Hell unless he converts into the Church with faith and baptism.
We do not know who is saved in invincible ignorance or who knows about Jesus and the Church and did not enter and so is damned (Lumen Gentium 14). This is known only to God.The Church says all need faith and baptism (AG 7).
Those Catholics who say there are 'exceptions' imply, in the Nicene Creed , " I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, water, blood and desire', instead of, 'I believe in one (known) baptism for the forgiveness of sin (water)."All this irrationality emerges with 'explicit exceptions'.
Pope John XXIII initiated a traditional Vatican Council II when there are no 'explicit exceptions' used in the interpretation.
Pope Paul VI concluded Vatican Council II which is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney when there are no 'explicit exceptions' used in the interpretation.
Without 'explicit exceptions' Pope John Paul II 's Vatican Council II is in agreement with Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Ecclesia di Eucarestia, Ecclesia in Asia etc. It does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors or the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
7.
CCC1257
Those who have received salvation 'without the Sacraments' (CCC 1257-God is not limited to the Sacraments) could have died and have returned to life after death to be baptized with water, as was the experience of St. Francis Xavier. They were not sent to Hell.
Also a non Catholic in invincible ignorance could have had a preacher sent to him by God, to be taught the faith and to be baptized with water.This was taught by St.Thomas Aquinas.
So all who are in Heaven are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.The ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism. It is not being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc.
However either way, with the baptism of water or 'without the Sacrament', these cases are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.They are known only to God.
CCC 1257 does not contradict itself when it says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.
CCC 1257 also does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since these cases are not explict.

Feeneyism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions to Feeneyism.Feeneyism is an affirmation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,whose text does not mention any exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades


DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Pope%20Benedict%20XVI


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=4231137151424689665