When Pope Francis refers to Vatican
Council II in Traditionis Custode it must be Vatican Council II interpreted
rationally and not irrationally. Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally is
heretical and schismatic. It is dishonest and unethical. It cannot be
Magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake based upon a
False Premise. The Holy Spirit would not use an irrationality to contradict the
past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
It is Magisterial to interpret Vatican
Council II rationally. This would be the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.
Since the Council interpreted with the Rational Premise would be in harmony
with the past Magisterium. There would be no heresy, schism and dishonest mistake.
There would be the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
At Dijon, France the Latin laity must
appeal to Pope Francis to only interpret Vatican Council II rationally and call upon Bishop Roland Minnerath and the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, to do the same.
They could appeal to Pope Francis to write his next encyclical with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally i.e. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc , would refer to only hypothetical and speculative cases in 2021.They are not personally known examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is being rational. LG 8, LG 16 etc cannot be objective people in the present times, saved without faith and the baptism of water. Since such cases can only be known to God. The norm for salvation in the Catholic Church is faith and the baptism of water. So when we meet a non Catholic we know that he or she is oriented to the fires of Hell and is not an exception. There are no practical exceptions for us human beings. Vatican Council II supports the norm, the past ecclesiocentrism.
MESSAINLATINO, RORATE CAEILI
Now we have a rational and traditional
choice on Vatican Council II yet all the Lefebvrist-traditionalist websites and
blogs (Messainlatino, Rorate Caeili etc) interpret the Council irrationally
like the liberals. So they cannot appeal to Pope Francis to re-interpret
Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise and a traditional conclusion. With
the common Fake Premise they contribute towards the present liberalism in the
Church.
The traditionalist media supports the
Lefebvrist interpretation of the Council, with the Fake Premise, but now we
have a choice. We can choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and
traditionally and appeal to the College of Cardinals to do the same.
Traditionis Custode must only be
interpreted rationally and in harmony with the Deposit of the Faith, which does
not change. So the Council is only Magisterial when the False Premise is not
used to create an artificial break with Tradition.
When at the National Catechechetical Center, Italy (Jan 30.2021), Pope Francis said that Vatican Council II had to be accepted as he interprets it (with a false premise), the result had to be schism. There is a break with de fide teachings of the past Magisterium. To be Magisterial and non schismatic he would have to use the Rational Premise.
SCHISM WITH THE 'TRUE CHURCH'
With the Fake Premise we have schism
with ‘the true Church’ represented by the Councils, Creeds, dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus and other Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally.
With the Fake Premise there is schism, irrespective of who uses it- cardinals,
bishops, rectors or religious sisters.
This is an important point to note.
Since the traditionalists did not bring it up when Pope Francis issued
Traditionis Custode.He restricted the Latin Mass for the Ecclesia Dei
communities. They have to continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the
False Premise and accept the nontraditional theological conclusion, upon which
depends the New Ecumenism etc.
Even religious communities like the
Dominicans, whose priests offer Holy Mass in English or Italian, have to use
the Fake Premise. It is obligatory. Dominican priests cannot remain on the
Angelicum faculty in Rome and be allowed to offer Holy Mass if they use the
Rational Premise in public. The False Premise is obligatory for those who offer
the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass. This message has not come out in the reports on
Traditionis Custode.
Since the popes condone the common error
of the False Premise, American foundations with the green light of the US
bishops (USCCB) fund ecumenical studies at the Dominican Angelicum University,
Rome, only for students who are non ecclesiocentric.Only those students can
study at this pontifical university, who are dishonest and unethical and use a
False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II.
To reject the Athanasius Creed and to
change the understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed, with a Fake Premise,
is first class heresy, in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II ( Ad
Tuendum Fidem) and the traditionalists are going along with it. It is schism in
the Church. Pope Francis, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis
Custode,interprets Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise to create a fake rupture
with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit.Rorate Caeili does
not mention this.
Rorate Caeili (F.G) has reports critical
of Archbishop Arthur Roche while this web blog interprets Vatican Council II
with the Fake Premise, like Archbishop Roche.
Instead Rorate Caeili and Messainlatino
should appeal to Pope Francis and Archbishop Arthur Roche to interpret Vatican
Council II rationally. It should be acknowledged that Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre made a mistake when he used the False Premise and we can move on from there.
With the Rational Premise there will no more be ‘the new Magisterium’ of
Archbishop Roche.
Don Pietro Leone writing on Rorate
Caeili must know that times have changed. After 50 years we know that we are
not obligated to use the Irrational Premise of Rahner, Ratzinger and Lefebvre.
The SSPX Resistance too has to change.
They interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise like cardinals Sean O
Malley, Walter Kasper and Raymond Leo Burke. Those who offer the Latin or Novus
Ordo Mass and use the Fake Premise support the liberal theology in the Church.
Traditionalism and liberalism do not
depend upon the Latin Mass.
Fr. Serafino Lanzetta and Roberto dei Mattei are not proclaiming the Faith on Traditionis Custode and Vatican Council II and remain politically correct with the Left. Even Corrado Gnerre, a good apologist, does not interpet Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and tell the Franciscans of the Immaculate that they could do the same.
Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Yves
Congar, John Courtney Murray, Hans Kung and Richard Cushing interpreted Vatican
Council II with the red right hand side irrational column. While Bishop
Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall interpret Lumen Gentium 14 (baptism
of desire) with the rational blue left hand side column and so their conclusion is
traditional and non schismatic.
Wikipedia and the secular media must
also choose the blue left hand side rational column to interpret Magisterial
Documents in the Catholic Church. Now their narrative on Traditionis Custode
and Vatican Council II is based upon the irrational red right hand side column.
We must know that the Nouvelle
Theologique of Vatican Council II was not created by the Dominican Reginald
Garangou Langride. It was created by some of the Council Fathers (1965) from
the Fake Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
That Letter rejected the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus and postulated unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as
being known and objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.So EENS was made obsolete.
The New Theology was outside the Church there
is salvation.
Traditionalists with their banners and placards outside the Nuncio’s office in Paris, could also say, ‘Pope Francis please interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise and come back to Catholic Tradition’. Press conferences could also bring out the appeal.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
