Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Bishop of Porto,Portugal Manuel da Silva's mistake - liturgy does not determine 'the strict groups' : it is LOHO which decides ecclesiology

Traditionalists still do not know that if they recognize that the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) 1 was wrong the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes, irrespective if the Mass is in Greek, Latin or English.Presently priests at the Greek Byzantine Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome affirm the LOHO.Priests in all rites affirm the LOHO.It's LOHO which decides the understanding of salvation, if it is exclusive or non exclusive. So then there is a continuation with the old ecclesiology at Mass.So when Mass is now offered in Greek, Latin and Italian in Rome there is a rupture with the old understanding of salvation because of the second half of LOHO.
The whole Church has gone kind of loco, or LOHO.
Bishop Manuel da Silva Rodrigues Linda, the new bishop of Porto, Portugal, in an interview  has criticized 'the strict groups' and Tancred on his blog The Eponymous Flower has a headline,'New Old LIberal Bishop is Worried by the Immemorial Mass of All Ages'. 2.

MASS IN PORTUGESE WITH OR WITHOUT LOHO
Bishop Linda, like the traditionalists, does not know that without the second half  of LOHO, priests who offer Mass in Portuguese in his diocese, can affirm  the strict interpretation of EENS and would come in his category of 'strict groups'. Without the LOHO mistake they would be able to  affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS.So this is a return to the old ecclesiology of the Church, at Mass in Greek and Latin.
So the Catholic Church's  understanding of its superiority and exclusiveness in salvation, is not restricted to the Latin Mass.
Pope Francis knows this. So he permits the Latin Mass. There is the Una Voce Latin Mass which accepts the second part of the LOHO. There is the FSSP Latin Mass which interprets EENS and Vatican Council II according to LOHO. BOD, BOB and I.I are  exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
There is the St. Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Latin Mass, which interprets Vatican Council II with the second part of the LOHO. 
Then there is the SSPX  Latin Mass which interprets EENS and Vatican Council II, with the second part of the LOHO.

LATIN AND NOVUS ORDO MASS HAS SAME ECCLESIOLOGY
So Pope Francis does not have a problem with the Latin Mass any more.It has the same ecclesiology as Mass in the vernacular since the common denominator is the LOHO.

GREEK BYZANTINE PRIESTS SAYS THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EENS
So when I went for Mass at the Greek Byzantine church in central Rome the priest told me BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. Then when I went for Mass at the nearby church under the FSSP,at the time of Summorom Pontificum, where Fr. Kramer was the Rector, for them too BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS.
Similarly Bishop Morlino in the Madison Diocese, USA and Fr. Z have no problem with the Vatican and the USCCB, since they support LOHO.

WHAT IF A PRIEST REJECTS THE SECOND HALF OF LOHO AND ACCEPTS THE FIRST HALF ? : VATICAN COUNCIL II CHANGES
Now what if a priest who offers Mass in Italian here announces that BOD, BOB and I.I are not visible but invisible?
Finished. That is the end of the  LOHO interpretation.
The way is open to affirm EENS as they did over the centuries in Greek and Latin.This was the EENS which St. Thomas Aquinas knew.This was EENS according to St. Augustine.
But this will be unacceptable to the bishop of Porto, Portugal. He will probably have this priest who offers the Novus Ordo Mass in Portuguese suspended.

STRICT GROUPS WOULD INCLUDE MASS IN PORTUGESE
So the issue would no more be the Latin Mass. The 'strict groups' would include Mass, in Portuguese.So the real issue is not liturgy but LOHO.
Do you interpret Magisterial documents at Mass with or without the second half of LOHO? This determines the ecclesiology at the Greek, Latin or Portuguese Mass. 
Traditionalists do not understand this because of the confusion created since the time of LOHO(1949).

MYSTICI CORPORIS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH OR WITHOUT LOHO
For examples on their websites you will find them interpreting Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. They are not aware of the mistake in the second half of LOHO. BOD, BOB and I.I are unknown cases and so are not really exceptions to EENS.Mystici Corporis etc were referring to hypothetical cases and not known people saved outside the Church.

IF VATICAN COUNCIL II IS INTERPRETED WITHOUT LOHO POPE PAUL VI CANNOT BE BLAMED : THE COUNCIL IS TRADITIONAL
Similarly the traditionalist and sedevacantists, blame the popes since John XXIII for Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition.But without the influence of LOHO,  BOD, BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical cases.It is the same with LG 8 or GS 22. So when Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition they can no more blame the popes since John XXIII.
If traditionalists understood this then they could correct their mistake.They could show Bishop Linda how even Mass in Portuguese today  can have the same exclusivist ecclesiology as that of the Mass over the centuries.The ecclesiology is not determined by the liturgy or rite but if they accept or reject the second half of LOHO.-Lionel Andrades

1.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ( SECOND HALF)
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit (SINCE INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE REFERS TO A KNOWN PERSON THE LETTER SAYS NO ONE WILL BE SAVED WHO KNOWS INSTEAD OF ALL NON CATHOLICS IN GENERAL. BEING SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE IS AN EXCEPTION TO FEENEYITE EENS) to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member,(THE DOGMA EENS IS CONTRADICTED HERE. SINCE BOD, BOB AND I.I ARE CONSIDERED KNOWN PEOPLE SAVED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH)  but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, ( THOSE WHO ARE RELATED BY A CERTAIN UNCONSCIOUS YEARNING AND DESIRE ARE HYPOTHETICAL CASES FOR US. SO THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT OR EXCEPTIONS TO EENS. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED HERE. IT IS MENTIONED SINCE IT IS ASSUMED TO BE A KNOWN PERSON PERSON SAVED AS SUCH OUTSIDE THE CHURCH )but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine(THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SAY INVISIBLE PEOPLE ARE VISIBLE) certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities,(HE REFUSED TO SAY INVISIBLE PEOPLE ARE VISIBLE EXCEPTIONS TO EENS)  and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.(THE NEW THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE WAS INVISIBLE CASES OF BOD, BOB AND I.I WERE VISIBLE EXCEPTIONS TO THE OLD UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION)
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation. (THEY WERE TEACHING THAT HYPOTHETICAL CASES OF BOD, BOB AND I.I MUST NOT BE CONSIDERED HYPOTHETICAL)
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

2.


http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2018/03/new-old-liberal-bishop-is-worried-by.html#comment-form

No comments: