Monday, April 1, 2019

Msgr. Patrick Descourtieux does not represent all trads

Msgr. Patrick Descourtieux
Msgr. Patrick Descourtieux is a liberal. He is a Cushingite.He interprets Vatican Council II with the New Theology.He does not represent all traditionalists in the Catholic Church.
He is only allowed to offer Holy Mass,since he affirms Vatican Council II (Cushingite), EENS ( Cushingite) and the Creeds and Catechisms (Cushingite).He interprets Magisterial documents with Cushingism ( invisible non Catholics saved outside the Church are objective examples of salvation and practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
He uses the false premise( invisible non Catholics saved are visible) and inference ( they are objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church ).In this way he interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors,ecumenism of return etc).It is the same with Archbishop Guido Pozzo at Archbishop Augustine di Noia at the former Ecclesia Dei.
Like the traditionalist Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, N.H, USA, he does not interpret Vatican Council II with  Feeneyite philosophy and theology. Neither does he interpret the Creeds, Catechisms and Letter of the Holy Office 1949,  with Feeneyism ( hypothetical cases are just hypothetical and not exceptions to EENS).
To have qualified for his new responsibility at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) he had to assume invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to traditional EENS.In other words Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Holy Office 1949 correct, even though there is an obvious rupture between faith and reason.
It was also obligatory to interpret unknown cases, referenced in LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being known examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2019.
If he says invisible cases of BOD, LG 8 etc are just invisible in the present times, he will not be allowed to offer the Latin or Novus Ordo Mass.
For then there would be no rupture with the old ecclesiology. Presently the Latin Mass is not the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.Pope Benedict confirmed that EENS was no more the same today as it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.(Avvenire March 2016) There was a rupture with Vatican Council II for him.He meant Vatican Council II Cushingite and not Vatican Council II Feeneyite. 
With Vatican Council II and EENS Feeneyite he would be saying that all Muslims in Morrocco are oriented to Hell without faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14) and there are no known exceptions.Now he can pretend that there are known exceptions.
Canon Law has been inverted by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1983. Now a Rector, Superior or President of a Catholic religious institution, has to mouth heresy and irrationality, to be accepted .Even the new understanding of the Profession of Faith based on the Nicene Creed supports heresy.
With BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 , GS 22 etc referring to known and visible non Catholics saved outside the Church, the traditional Oath of Office and the Oath Against Modernism is meaningless. It has become as obsolete as the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades 

 http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-appoints-french-patristics-scholar-to-handle-sspx-talks

Repost : Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional


 


 Image result for Photo Fr.Nicholas GrunerImage result for Photo Fr.Nicholas Gruner

November 11, 2014

Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional 

 Image result for Photo Fr.Nicholas Gruner

Fr.Nicholas Gruner assumes that the deceased now saved in Heaven are visible to us on earth and are explicit exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church with faith and baptism. So for him Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fault is not with Vatican Council.He wrongly infers that there are known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council to the dogma.The  text of the Council does not state that there are exceptions to the dogma or that LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to explicit- for- us cases.
The cardinals and bishops at the Vatican are also using this irrational inference and so Vatican Council II is  projected as a break with Tradition; extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.Cardinal Innocenti, Cardinal Sanchez, Cardinal Agustoni, Archbishop Sepe, Archbishop Grochelewski, and Bishop Forte are using the same irrational premise. Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional.-L.A


 
 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/11/frnicholas-gruner-has-only-to-interpret.html