Saturday, January 13, 2018

Repost : All these years Cardinal Castrillon Hoyes wanted the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingite theology without asking Pope Benedict to recant for this mistake

JANUARY 12, 2018

All these years Cardinal Castrillon Hoyes wanted the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingite theology without asking Pope Benedict to recant for this mistake

Image result for Photo Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos with Pope Francis

All these years Cardinal Castrillon Hoyes wanted the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingite theology, without asking Pope Benedict to recant for this mistake.The pope needed to admit that he is the cause of the doctrinal crisis in the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Hoyes should have asked the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyite theology. Then he could watch how Pope Benedict and the Jewish Left  say that this is unacceptable and that Vatican Council II must only be affirmed with Cushingite theology.Vatican Council II may then no more be a requirement for canonical status, once the ruse has been discovered.
There has to be a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology for the Jewish Left rabbis and with Vatican Council II Feeneyite the Council is in harmony with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So Vatican Council II Feeneyite would not be acceptable to them. Today priests cannot even speak about it in public.
A sympathetic Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, approached the SSPX bishops during the pilgrimage and, according to Bishop Fellay, told them that the Pope was prepared to grant them either a personal prelature (a new juridical structure introduced by Vatican II; presently Opus Dei is the only personal prelature) or an apostolic administration (the status given to the traditionalist priests of Campos, Brazil1

The SSPX  can still be given a personal prelature after Pope Benedict recants. He needs to clear the doctrinal confusion in the Church when he states 1) invisible cases of the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not visible and known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and that 2) Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22) is not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century.

Any  journalist who meets him could ask him:"Are there any known cases of people saved outside the Church in 2018 with BOD,BOB and I.I ?".Pope Benedict will have to say,"No.I do not know of any such case.If there were any they would only be known to God".
The journalist could ask, "So there are no practical exceptions to EENS in 2018". He would answer ,"There can be no practical exceptions to EENS since we cannot know of any one saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I".
He could then be asked , "What about Vatican Council II. Is LG 16, LG 8,GS 22 a rupture with Feeneyite EENS?".The pope would have to answer,"No it is not." He could say," But since Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed it was, we repeated the same thing".
The Catholic journalist would ask,"SVatican Council II can be interpreted with LG 16, GS 22 etc referring to only hypothetical cases, possibilities known only to God. They are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, they  cannot be practical exceptions ?". Pope Benedict would say, "They cannot be practical exceptions.Since they are only possibilities." He could add,"to assume they are practical exceptions would be a rupture between faith and reason."
The pope would be asked," So the SSPX and F.I can affirm Vatican Council II with LG 16, GS 22 referring to only hypothetical cases.They are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS?". Pope Benedict would say, "Yes. This would be rational".
"So  are you saying that EENS is still like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century and you made a mistake in March 2016?", the pope must be asked. Pope Benedict would have to answer "Yes" with this reasoning.
So the conclusion would be that the SSPX would be able to affirm Vatican Council II and the past exclusivisit ecclesiology of the Church based on outside the Church there is no salvation. Theologically there could only be an ecumenism of return.
Cardinal Castrillòn Hoyos indicated five conditions that SSPX must comply with as a preparatory step for achieving full communion.The Cardinal did not ask in an explicit way for acceptance of the Second Vatican Council as a true Ecumenical Council or of the validity of the Mass of Paul VI, matters on which the Secretariat of State later made clear agreement is required for unity of doctrine.

So for unity of doctrine  we now know that it is Pope Benedict who is at fault.It is he who must correct himself in public.
On several occasions, but especially in the homily Fellay preached at Lourdes for the SSPX Pilgrimage, on 26 October 2008,he replied that the Vatican requests were ambiguous.
Pope Benedict was ambiguous since he was affirming the heretical position of ecclesiasitical Masonry he was trying to serve Mammon instead of God, the Jewish Left instead of Jesus.
The note added that future recognition of the Society required full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and of the teaching of Popes John XXIIIPaul VIJohn Paul IJohn Paul II and Benedict XVI, and repeated the assurance given in the decree of 21 January 2009 that the Holy See would study, along with those involved, the questions not yet settled, so as to reach a full satisfactory solution of the problems that had given rise to the split
So it is Pope Benedict who must recant  'with the full recognition of the Second Vatican Council II', without the irrational Cushingite theology which would automatically take the Church back to the past ecclesiology of the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this stance in his motu proprio Ecclesiae unitatem of 2 July 2009...However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

So we now that it is Pope Benedict who is in schism with the Magisterium of the 16th century by assuming invisible and hypothetical cases are visible and known examples of salvation outside the Church. So with this irrationality he has interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church.It is he who must recant and end this de facto schism with the authentic Magisterium of the past.
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI gave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal William Levada the task of continuing the dialogue with the Society of St Pius X on theological issues in the hope of attaining reconciliation.

Cardinal Levada was also interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past. He was following the heresy being promoted by Pope Benedict.
The team responsible for the dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X on behalf of the Catholic Church included Charles Morerod, former Rector Magnificus and theology and philosophy professor of the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum.
Bishop Morerod in Switzerland still interprets Vatican Council II with the heresy of Pope Benedict.He asked that the SSPX not be allowed to offer Mass in the mainline churches in Switzerland, until the doctrinal issue is settled. He wants the SSPX to also, like himself, be in schism with the past Magisterium.
On 14 September 2011, Cardinal Levada met Bishop Fellay and presented to him a document referred to as a doctrinal preamble to possible rehabilitation of the Society and the granting to it of a canonical status within the Church.
Again the SSPX would have to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise and then they would be rehabilitated by a Magisterium which was  responsible for the doctrinal mess.
It was planned to publish the preamble or a revised version of it only after agreement with the SSPX, but the document was believed to consist essentially in the profession of faith required of persons taking up offices in the Church.

The Profession of faith would be based on the Nicene Creed which would have to be interpreted with Cushingite instead of Feeneyite theology. So the understanding would be "I believe in three or more known baptisms (not one) which exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church"and " 'I believe in the Holy Spirit', which guides the Church to teach that there is known salvation outside the Church' and "I believe 'in one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' in which every one does not need to be incorporated as a member since there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc which are examples of salvation outside the Church".
A further meeting between Levada and Fellay took place on 16 March 2012, at which Levada handed Fellay a letter evaluating the Society's response. The Holy See published a note that declared: "In compliance with the decision by Pope Benedict XVI, the evaluation of the response of His Excellency Bishop Fellay was communicated to him by a letter delivered to him today. This evaluation notes that the position that he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the rift between the Holy See and the aforesaid Society. 

Bishop Fellay refused to affirm Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which is an obvious rupture with Tradition and neither did he accuse Pope Benedict of schism. There was no appeal to the pope to recant his doctrinal mistake created  with a false,new theology.
In July 2012, the Society held a general chapter to consider the June communication from the Holy See and issued a declaration that "the Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it".

Bishop Fellay was really saying that he would ignore Vatican Council II(Cushingite), he was unaware of Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) and he would simply affirm the past ecclesiology of the Church.
In an interview on 4 October 2012, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the new President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", remarked, with regard to the Holy See's demand that the Society accept the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, including those on religious freedom and human rights:

With Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same . So there would be no change in ecumenism, the concept of outside the Church all non Catholics are on the way to Hell.The missionary approach would be traditional since most people it would be realized are on the way to Hell since they are outside the Church(Vatican Council II,Ad Gentes 7).There would be no change in the traditional concept of religious freedom in a Catholic State. So Dignitatis Redintigratio would not be a rupture with the past.This will probably be rejected by the Jewish Left.
"In a pastoral sense, the door is always open"; he added: "We cannot put the Catholic faith at the mercy of negotiations. Compromise does not exist in this field. I think that there can now be no new discussions.

Pope  Benedict has already compromised the 'Catholic faith' by assuming hypothetical cases, possibilities known only to God, are real examples of salvation outside the Church and are objective exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera published on 22 December 2013 an interview with Archbishop Müller in which he was asked: "Now that the discussions have failed, what is the situation of the Lefebvrians?" Müller replied: "The canonical excommunication for the illicit ordinations has been lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental de facto excommunication for schism remains;(Cardinal Muller is in schism with his irrational Cushingite theology which only knows of a Vatican Council II,with the false premise andextra ecclesiam nulla salus interpreted with the false premise)  they have departed from communion with the Church (He is not in communion with the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century). We do not follow that up by shutting the door, we never do, and we call on them to be reconciled. (The CDF could begin the reconciliation by affirming EENS and Vatican Council II with Feeneyite theology) But on their part too, they must change their attitude and accept the Catholic Church's conditions and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion of membership."[41][42] 
(Pope Benedict must recant and end  the
doctrinal confusion in the Church).
-Lionel Andrades


JANUARY 11, 2018

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos must ask Pope Benedict to recant and end the doctrinal crisis in the Church

No comments: