-Lionel Andrades
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Repost : All the cardinals, bishops and priests who offer the Latin Mass at the FSSP church Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, Rome, have to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.
JULY 1, 2020
All the cardinals, bishops and priests who offer the Latin Mass at the FSSP church Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, Rome, have to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.
All the cardinals, bishops and priests who offer the Latin Mass at the FSSP church Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, Rome, have to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.
It is obligatory for the FSSP priests in Rome to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so reject 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). If they do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II the Rome Vicariate and the Vatican, will not allow them to be incardinated here.
Fr. Ron Rolheiser in Canada and the priests of his Oblate School of Theology, Texas, USA have no problem in Rome. Incardination is easy. Since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so reject EENS.
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and Fr.John Zuhsldorf are allowed to offer the Latin Mass at the FSSP church. Since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference and so create an artificial rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
I was a seminarian at the Legion of Christ seminary in Rome (PIMME) and then the Beda College, the English pontifical seminary in Rome and within a month had to leave both seminaries.Since I would affirm Feeneyite EENS which meanT I was not interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise, as was expected by the Vatican and the Left.
Fr. John Zuhsldorf can offer Mass at the Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini since he politically supports the Bologna School of Alberto Melloni on Vatican Council II. Melloni has appeared on probably every televison channel and he gets a million euros a year,it was reported, from the present Leftist government in Italy.
He uses the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and then attacks traditional ecumenism and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Fr.Zuhlsdorf, has also assured Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter that he rejects EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney. He rejects a dogma of the Church with an irrationality.He changes the understanding of Vatican Council II with an irrationality.
FALSE PREMISE CREATES PARALLEL CHURCH
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, if he came out of hiding, could technically offer the Latin Mass at Santissma Trinita dei Pellegrini, since he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and this is politically acceptable for the Left in Rome.
There is a parallel Church in Rome and every one follows it who interprets Vatican Council II with a non rational premise to bring about a rupture with the past Magisterium, the traditional Catholic Church of the centuries.-Lionel Andrades
Lefebvrists in crisis mode
The Lefebvrist bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas, sedevacantists, are in a crisis mode today.But there problem is also that of Lefbvrists in general.
Sanborn and Pivarunas know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. If they do interpret the Council without the false premise, they would be supporting 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). There would be no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
But if they affirm Feeneyite EENS the Jewish Left will come after them. They will be labelled Anti Semetic etc and their websites will be targeted. There bank balances will be threatened and so also their seminary property.
It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei and Dr.Taylor Marshall for example. As long as they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, with Cushingite theology, the New Theology, there is a rupture with Tradition and Feeneyite EENS. The Jewish Left and the present two popes appreciate this.No problem.They are saying the same thing. Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition for them too.
If Mattei and Marshall did not use the false premise to interpet Vatican Council II they would be affirming Feeneyite EENS and this would not be allowed by the Left. This would be asking for trouble.So Mattei and Marshall use the Lefebvrist Theology to please the Jewish Left.
It is like Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery who affirm Feeneyite EENS, the strict interpretation of EENS. But they also interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture created with EENS and the Athanasius Creed. So they are tolerated by the Left.
Similarly Vigano and Brandmuller will not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise; the Lefebvrist new theology. They are tolerated. They can have all the discussions they want.
As along as they critize Vatican Council II and project it as a rupture with Tradition the Vatican and the Left don't mind. Since this is what the Left and the Vatican also do.
However if they did not use the false premise they would be telling the average Catholic that they can interpret the Council in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS as in the 1930's and before.
This would be unacceptable for the Left. Why would they permit Taylor Marshall to have a website and Roberto dei Mattei to have his media in Italy ?
He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. The Internet is owned by those who oppose and hate the Church. So Michael Voris has to comply and Dr.Joseph Shaw and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf tow the line. The FIUV and Una Voce also interpret the Council as a rupture with Tradition.
So it is safe for Vigano, Brandmuller and Schneider to interpret Lumen Gentium 8 for example, as an exception to EENS. This is politically correct. However if they said that LG 8 was not an exception to EENS, since it referred to a hypothetical case, this would be a crisis for them.
Now Sanborn and Pivarunas know that there is no basis for sedevacantism with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. But they are not going to affirm the Council in harmony with Tradition. They need the hermeneutic of rupture.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 1, 2020
Repost : If Catholics can accept that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and later Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake instead of Fr. Leonard Feeney - the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
FEBRUARY 9, 2018
If Catholics can accept that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and later Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake instead of Fr. Leonard Feeney - the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
If Catholics can accept that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and later Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake instead of Fr. Leonard Feeney - the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying that the baptism of desire(BOD) was not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the rest were saying it was.
The Magisterium was saying physically invisible cases of BOD were visible exceptions to the need for all to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation. They were exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying hypothetical cases could not be exceptions to EENS and so there was no salvation outside the Church.
The Council Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted the irrational premise, of Pope Pius XII.This was also accepted by Pope Benedict(Fr.Joseph Ratzinger) and Archbishop Lefebvre at Vatican Council II(1965).Today this is the common and official interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Now suppose we look at Vatican Council II from the perspective of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.They are not objective exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation. They cannot contradict EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Then reason it out. There will be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
This means the Council Fathers in 1965 made a mistake.The Pope from Pius XII to Paul VI made a mistake. The mistake has continued right up to Pope Francis.
So from now onwards we can re-interpret Vatican Council II as being in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
It was Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers of his time who were correct .It was the Archbishop of Boston,Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Rector of Boston College and the Jesuits, the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 and Pope Pius XII who were wrong.They were in heresy for rejecting the dogma EENS, a de fide teaching of the Church.They did it by using an irrational premise(invisible people are visible).
They have been responsible for the New Theology,which is based upon a false premise.It was supported by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) and in other magisterial documents.It makes Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition when the Council really is not if the error is avoided.-Lionel Andrades
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit (Fr.Leonard Feeney) added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
