Monday, November 7, 2016

Pope Benedict XVI was promoting the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

Comments form The Remnant Newspaper
Hi Lionel, If I read you right, are you suggesting that there is a "correct" reading of the Novus Ordo 
and Vatican II in keeping with tradition? Benedict XVI suggested that Vatican II should be 
interpreted in the light of a "hermeneutic of continuity" with tradition.
Pope Benedict XVI was promoting the hermeneutic of rupture
with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades

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

l'Università Gregoriana, interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II con una irrazionalità

0.31 Don Alessandro M. Minutella si riferisce alla teologia ecumenica viene insegnato nelle Università pontificie .Sulla base dei dogmi della Chiesa e Unitiatitis Redintigratio, il Concilio Vaticano II, che ha studiato presso l'Università Gregoriana.

Ma l'Università Gregoriana, interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II con una irrazionalità. Essi assumme casi ipotetici sono esplicito.Quando Unitatitis Redintigration 3 si riferisce ad ipotetici casi invisibili nel 2016 lo interpretano come casi visibili nel 2016 salvati al di fuori della Chiesa cattolica. Questo è irrazionale. Si tratta di una rottura con il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus sul esclusiva salvezza. Questa irrazionalità, hanno cambiato l'insegnamento tradizionale sull'ecumenismo.Si tratta di una nuova teologia che è una rottura con la teologia tradizionale ecumenica.
Si rifiuta il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e di re-interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II come una rottura con la tradizione e con l'interpretazione Feeneyite del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, è un'eresia per me.E una eresia ufficiale e magisteriale.

10.31 Don Alessandro M. Minutella refers to the Ecumenical Theology being taught at the pontifical universities which is .based on the dogmas of the Church and Unitiatitis Redintigratio, Vatican Council II which he studied at the Gregorian university.
At the Gregorian University they interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality. They assumme hypothetical cases are explicit .So when Unitatitis Redintigration 3 refers to hypothetical cases invisible in 2016 they interpret it as being visible cases in 2016 saved outside the Catholic Church. This is irrational. It is a break with the dogma of the Church on exclusive salvation.With this irrationality, they have changed the traditional teaching on ecumenism.
This is a new theology which is a break with the traditional ecumenical theology.
To reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to re-interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is heresy for me.It is official and magisterial heresy.

Secondo il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus tutti i luterani sono sulla strada per l'inferno a meno che non entrano nella Chiesa cattolica.
Secondo il Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7) tutti bisogno la fede e il battesimo per salvezza.Lutherani non hanno fede cattolica che includono i Sacramenti e la fede e gli insegnamenti morali della Chiesa.
Quindi, i luterani, in generale, sono sulla strada per l'inferno ci può essere solo un ecumenismo di ritorno.
Quindi per me, secondo i documenti magisteriali (Cantate Dominio, del Consiglio di Firenze 1441, il Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7), Concilio di Trento, ecc), tutti i luterani sono attualmente dirigendo verso 'i fuochi dell'inferno.
Così Papa Francesco e la Curia vaticana non sono affermando questi insegnamenti della Chiesa.

According to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus all Lutherans are on the way to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church.
According to Vatican Council II(AG 7) all need faith and baptism for salvation.Lutherans do not have Catholic Faith which include the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church.
So with Lutherans in general are on the way to Hell there can only be an ecumenism of return.
So for me according to magisterial documents ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II( AG 7) , Council of Trent etc) all Lutherans are presently heading for 'the fires of Hell.
So Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia are not affirming these teachings of the Church.


Did Ludwig Ott infer all this?

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
In Response to a Comment on The Remnant Newspaper.
I read The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott a long time back.I do not have a copy here with me.
What does he say?
1.Does he say that there is connection between the baptism of desire and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; all need to receieve the baptism of water in the Catholic Church with no exception?
2.Does he say that the baptism of desire is explicit? It is personally known in the present times?
3.Does he say that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water?
4.Does he infer that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood must always exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church or always include it?
5.Does he say that in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued, there were known cases of the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water?
If he does not say all this, then is this  your inference ? You infer all this like the liberal theologians did in 1949?
For you it is as follows ?:
1.There is a connection between the baptism of desire and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since there are personally known cases, for you, in the present times, saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.You know of exceptions to EENS.
2.The baptism of desire is explicit for you, objectively seen in personal cases.So it is relevant to EENS.They are visible exceptions to EENS.
3.Since the baptism of desire is visible in personal cases for you, it is something tangible like the baptism of water and so it can be repeatedly given to many, like the baptism of water.
4.The baptism of desire must always exclude the baptism of water,this is what God chose in the past and also for the future in every case of this kind.
5.In 1949 they knew of people who died with the baptism of desire and were saved and are now in Heaven, without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades