APRIL 4, 2022
Massimo Faggioli and Michael Sean Winters cannot accept reality. Vatican Council II ( Irrational) is finished . It’s obsolete. We have a rational alternative and we Catholics are not obliged to follow their irrational and deceptive interpretation of the Council.
Massimo Faggioli and Michael Sean Winters cannot accept reality.1 Vatican Council II(Irrational) is finished. It’s obsolete. We have a rational alternative and we Catholics are not obliged to follow their irrational and deceptive interpretation of the Council.
The liturgy and rubrics of the Latin Mass were never an issue. The real issue is theology: the interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without the False Premise. The interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without the Rational Premise. I do not feel obliged to interpret Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Creeds and Catechisms with a fake premise. Why should I?
This is now a political and ideological issue and it does not depend upon Holy Mass in the vernacular or in Latin.
The Holy Spirit cannot guide the Church to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise. We have human error here. It is there in Traditionis Custode and also the writings of Pope Benedict on Vatican Council II, Ecclesiology, Non Separation of Church and State etc.
VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE FAKE PREMISE IN TRADITIONIS CUSTODE
A recent development of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of the many Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner com Pietro in an ecumenical Council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode
The liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II after 1965 by Fr.John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Karl Rahner sj and Fr. Hans Kung sj.depended upon the Fake Premise, a lie.It was official deception when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved it.
Unlike Kung, Murray and Rahner, the Jesuits St. Ignatius of Loyola and St.Francis Xavier, preached on the necessity of believing in Jesus and being a member of His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, for salvation from Hell.
Students of theology at the Catholic universities and seminaries today are not told that Fr. Kung was interpreting Vatican Council II with a False Premise and creating false exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).This was the same Fake Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.It was not corrected by the popes from Pius XII, to Paul VI.Later popes also ignored the LOHO mistake.
If Fr. Hans Kung interpreted Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise there would be no exceptions for EENS, at Holy Mass.
With the Rational Premise the theological liberalism of Bishop Robert Barron and John Allen Jr., would end. Since they would have to go back to the ‘old theology’. There is no other rational choice.
With the old theology the bishops and parish priests would be able to preach on the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, with the non separation of Church and state and the need for Catholics to vote only for a Catholic political party to save souls from Hell. The Wojytyla-Ratzinger model of the Council would be finished.With EENS intact wer are back to Traditional Mission based upon the exclusivist ecclesiology and support for Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI.
Pope Francis thinks it is the Mass which makes a Catholic or seminarian ‘rigid’ when it really is the use of the Fake or Rational Premise, to interpret Magisterial Documents, which determines our conclusion-traditional or non-traditional.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic. We are no more limited by half a century of error. We have found the missing link, the secret error. We now know how to consistently, systematically and regularly create the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition, when reading Vatican Council II.
Opposition to Pope Francis is rooted in a rejection of Vatican Council II
APRIL 3, 2022
Bishop Robert Barron and John Allen Jr., were cheating with their book which was sold at the Los Angeles Religious Conference and was based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with the Fake Premise
Bishop Robert Barron and John Allen Jr., were cheating with their book which was sold at the Los Angeles Religious Conference.In their New Evangelisation they interpret Vatican Council II, knowingly with the False Premise to create a rupture with Catholic Tradition, which was exclusivist on salvation.
Bishop Barron and John Allen were proclaiming Jesus without the necessity of membership in the Church, without the reference to Hell and without the reference to mortal sins of faith.
In the past they could put aside the original teachings of the Church Fathers on salvation by saying that Vatican Council II ( Irrational), interpreted with the False Premise, contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). But now we know that we can interpret Vatican Council II (rationally) with the Rational Premise and there are no exceptions mentioned in the text for the strict interpretation of EENS, which would be rejected by Catholics in ignorance, at the L.A Conference.
So Barron and Allen have produced a politically -correct -with -the -Left book which denies the Athanasius Creed and considers it Catholic.
They both know that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, their’s and mine, and the conclusion is different.They are intentionally choosing the Fake Premise to produce a break with Tradition and which would contribute towards the New Ecumenism in a New World Order.
Without the Fake Premise there would not be the New Theology, New Evangelisation and New Ecumenism.
Scott Hahn praised this book because he too interprets Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise to produce a rupture with the dogma EENS which was affirmed by the Vendees, St. John of Arc and the Cristoforos in Mexico, whom he refers to at times.
Similarly Ralph Martin’s books are also written with the Fake and not Rational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So he does not have to affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So he was invited at the Synod for the New Evangelisation.His books are approved by writers on Vatican Council II who also use the Fake Premise and then suggest that non Catholics do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.This is their New Evangelisation.
Bishop Barron could not tell Ben Shapiro that he needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the New Evangelisation.They interpret Lumen Gentium with the Fake Premise and then project non existing exceptions for John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.
This is what Barron and Allen are doing in their books.
They are proclaiming Jesus in a vague way without mentioning that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation in the present times.There are no practical exceptions for Magisterial Documents which they re-interpret with the False Premise.
There were people at the L.A Conference who were catechizing at the parish level, who do not know that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell, with no known exceptions, unless they convert into the Catholic Church and that this is the traditional teaching of Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally.
With the Fake Premise they are influenced by the culture which rejects the Church Fathers, the missionaries of the 16th century and the traditional Catholic ecclesiology which is exclusivist, after Vatican Council II (rational).
-Lionel Andrades
APRIL 3, 2022
The USCCB needs to clarify that LG 16 (I.I) and LG 14 (BOD) refer to only hypothetical cases in 2022 : otherwise it is promoting a lie
The American bishops (USCCB) are cheating. The Catholic Church has always taught that there is exclusive salvation in only Jesus in His Mystical Body the Catholic Church. The USCCB bishops say ‘No’. There are exceptions for them. Example, people who are in ignorance and do not know the Gospel for no fault of their own(LG 14) or who have a desire to receive the baptism of water but die before receiving it. They too will be saved for the USCCB bishops. So not everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation is their false reasoning.
It is false since being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) or with the desire for the baptism of water, commonly called the baptism of desire (BOD) are not objective cases in the present times. We cannot see someone saved with BOD or I.I. It is known only to God. So it is false to project BOD and I.I as being practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. So it is false for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to suggest that there are known cases of BOD and I.I in 2021-2022.How can invisible cases of BOD and I.I be practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) in the present times? How can BOD and I.I contradict the Athanasius Creed?
Yes, the American bishops will not affirm the Athanasius Creed in public.
They use a Fake Premise (invisible people are visible in the present times). Then they follow it with a False Inference (there are invisible cases of non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water).
Then there is the False Conclusion (everyone does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. The Athanasius Creed, dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors are obsolete with the exceptions).
So in the past the popes taught that outside the Church there is no salvation, now the Americanists say outside the Church there is salvation. This is specious reasoning.
RATIONAL PREMISE FOR ME
I still continue to use the Rational Premise ( invisible people are invisible ) and Lumen Gentium 14( BOD) and Lumen Gentium 16( I.I) in Vatican Council II refer to only speculative, hypothetical and theoretical cases in 2022.
So there are no exceptions for EENS etc, mentioned in Vatican Council II, for me. The Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors are not contradicted by Vatican Council II. No exceptions are mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
VATICAN COUNCIL II (RATIONAL) SUPPORTS EENS
Instead, Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 say all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation. The word all is used in Ad Gentes 7.
So the Catholic Church, for me, still affirms that it has exclusive salvation. My premise and inference are rational and so my conclusion is traditional. I consider this being Catholic and this is being honest.
The Catholic Church has not changed its teaching on John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. There is the Great Commission- with no known exceptions in practical life.This is a practical reality. Non Catholics need to convert to avoid Hell ( for salvation) is still the hard truth taught by the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II(rational) and other Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally. So the American bishops are cheating.
They lie for political reasons. How can they be trusted on other issues? They need to correct the error.
They are unethical even by secular standards in the USA.
Bishop Robert Barron when asked by Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, if he needed to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation)- Bishop Barron said No. Barron then rationalized.He indicated that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) was a practical exception for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, which he denied before Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro was not in invincible ignorance and neither did he have the desire for the baptism of water.
But Bishop Barron was saying that the non Christian did not need to convert and that there was no more exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. For salvation it was not necessary to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church for Bishop Barron.
He projected invisible cases as being visible exceptions for Catholic Tradition.
Imagine it- when you meet the average American bishop, you know his concept of reality is different from yours. For him invisible people are visible and for me invisible people are invisible. So his concepts in medicine, health, pharmacology, medical treatment and rehabilitation, COVID etc, could also be different.
Their opinion on child safety could also be different, since their objective reality, is different from mine – what is invisible in the present life is visible for the USCCB.
Practically we are living in different realities. Their boarding of airplanes could be different and in emergency situations could also be differet.
Is it honest and legal, for them to teach Catholics, and inform people at large, that physically invisible people are visible? We can see and meet a baptism of desire case in New York or California?
Can they be trusted with finances?
It may not be a mortal sin, for them, since their objective reality on earth, is different.
The USCCB needs to clarify that LG 16 (I.I) and LG 14 (BOD) refer to only hypothetical cases in 2022. -Lionel Andrades
MARCH 17, 2018
LIBERALISM BASED ON CUSHINGITE VATICAN COUNCIL II IS OBSOLETE.THE AVERAGE CATHOLIC, THE RANK AND FILE CATHOLIC IS INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT IS RATIONAL AND WHO IS FAKING IT.
FR.LEONARD FEENEY IS THE KEY TO RESOLVING THE DOCTRINAL CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OVER VATICAN COUNCIL II.IF YOU ACCEPT FR. FEENEY AS BEING CORRECT THEN VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NOT A RUPTURE WITH TRADITION.SINCE INVISIBLE FOR US BAPTISM OF DESIRE(BOD), BAPTISM OF BLOOD(BOB) AND BEING SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE(I.I) ARE NOT VISIBLE EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (EENS).THIS IS HOW YOU WOULD REASON.THIS WOULD BE NORMAL.
LG 8,LG 16 NOT EXCEPTIONS TO TRADITIONAL EENS WHEN FEENEYISM IS THE REASONING
SO LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11( SEEDS OF THE WORD) ETC WOULD NOT BE EXCEPTIONS TO TRADITIONAL EENS.YOU WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT LG 8, LG 16,UR 3 ETC LIKE BOD,BOB AND I.I ARE JUST HYPOTHETICAL CASES.SPECULATIVE POSSIBILITIES ACCEPTED WITH GOOD WILL BUT WITH NO CONNECTION TO EENS.THEY ARE NOT A PROBLEM FOR A FEENEYITE CATHOLIC, FOR WHOM HYPOTHETICAL CASES ARE JUST HYPOTHETICAL.
VATICAN COUNCIL WITH FEENEYITE REASONING DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE PAST ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CHURCH
MAGISTERIUM NOT ALLOWED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FEENEYITE REASONING
MAGISTERIUM CONTRADICTS ITSELF FORCED TO USE CUSHINGITE IRRATIONAL REASONING.
CUSHINGISM CREATES POPE BENEDICT'S HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE WITH THE PAST
CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA ESCAPED WITH CUSHINGITE LG 8
POPE BENEDICT GOT AWAY WITH CUSHINGITE VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EENS
BISHOP SANBORN AND FR.CEKADA COMFORTABLE WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EENS CUSHINGITE
BISHOP MARK PIVARUNAS WILL NOT CHOOSE VATICAN COUNCIL II FEENEYITE
SEDEVACANTISM BASED ON THE REJECTION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IS OBSOLETE
TRADITIONALISTS WILL KNOW THAT THEY CAN AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II FEENEYITE.
LIBERALISM BASED ON VATICAN COUNCIL II CUSHINGITE IS ALSO OBSOLETE
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2022/04/more-out-of-touch-bloviating-on-god.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment