Pope Francis addressed members of the Pontifical
Liturgical Institute of the Benedictine University of St. Anselm, whose
members are all interpreting Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents
with a False Premise to create ecclesial unity, with liberalism and division
with the past Magisterium. -Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 4, 2022
Archbishop Arthur Roche, Andrea Grillo, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr.Joseph Shaw use the same False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a false break with Tradition, supporting the common liberalism
Archbishop Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments speaks at Sant’Anselmo’s Academic Inauguration
Archbishop Arthur Roche, Andrea Grillo, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr.Joseph Shaw use the same False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a false break with Tradition, supporting the common liberalism, and the Jewish Left. It is the False Premise which creates heresy and schism and a rupture between faith and reason. So Kwasniewski and Shaw cannot ask Roche and Grillo to interpret Vatican Council II with only the Rational Premise when they teach the liturgy and theology at the Benedictine University of St. Anselm, Rome.
If Kwasniewski and Shaw were rational in the interpretation of Magisterial Documents they could also ask Bishop Roland Minnerath at Dijone, France, to interpret Vatican Council II only with the Rational Premise at Mass in French.
This should be the norm for all rites in France. It should also be the norm for the diocesan priests who offer the Latin Mass there.
They could have asked Bishop Gian Carlo Perego to do the same in diocese of Commacchio-Ferrara, Italy where young traditionalist priests were transferred.
Similarly they could expect Bishop Stephen Lopes
at the Anglican Ordinariate, who excommunicated
Fr. Vaughn Treco, and Fr. Michael Nazir Ali, to do the same i.e. interpret Vatican Council II as having no exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They could affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with the baptism of desire not being an exception.They could affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with there being no known exceptions for an ecumenism of return.
They could affirm the Athanasius Creed with there being no exceptions for all to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
They could affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q,27Q-Outside the Church) with invincible ignorance ( 29Q) not being an exception and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with 847-848( invincible ignorance) not contradicting Ad Gentes 7 in CCC 846.It (AG 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation and does not mention any known exceptions. -Lionel Andrades
https://www.osb.org/2021/10/11/roche-speaks-at-santanselmos-academic-inauguration/
https://onepeterfive.com/mind-behind-motu-proprio/
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022
Archbishop Arthur Roche has not informed the bishops who have accepted Traditionis Custode, that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise too and the conclusion would be traditional and ecclesiocentric
Despite “lots of blustering on the blogs”, Archbishop Roche said he is convinced that the majority of Latin-rite bishops and majority of Latin-rite Catholics around the world understand the importance of praying and celebrating the Eucharist with the same Mass.
Through regular contacts with bishops and bishops' conferences, he said, he knows most bishops have “greeted the Pope's call back to the council and also to the unity of the church with open arms and are very much behind what the Holy Father is saying”.-Archbishop Arthur Roche, Most bishops back Pope on Latin Mass, says Roche
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14920/most-bishops-back-pope-on-latin-mass-says-roche
Archbishop Arthur Roche has not informed the bishops who have accepted Traditionis Custode, that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise too and the conclusion would be traditional and ecclesiocentric and not non-traditional and that Pope Francis chose the Irrational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II when he issued Traditionis Custode.-Lionel Andrades
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2021
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and the traditionalists consider it Magisterial
He is disqualified Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and the traditionalists consider it Magisterial.A pope who interprets the Creeds and Catechisms with a false premise, even after being informed is automatically excommunicated.
How can Pope Francis be the pope when he interprets Vatican Council II and the Creeds and Catechisms with a fake premise to produce a false rupture with Catholic Tradition. pope until he corrects the error.
It would be the same for Pope Benedict.
Do we have a pope ? Yes and both are automatically excommunicated.They are a scandal.
Since they interpret the Council II with an irrationality to create a break with Tradition they don’t beleive in mortal sin.They don’t believe that they are in mortal sins of faith.
I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and so there is no rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
I am a Catholic in harmony with Tradition. I am a Catholic in harmony with the past Magisterium and the Athanasius Creed.
I follow the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the past popes, irrespective of the objective error of the present popes which are political.
I am not a member of Una Voce International or the Latin Mass Societies, which also use the fake premise, like the popes and the Left, to change the interpretation of Magisterial documents.I am not a traditionalist like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.Taylor Marhall.Neither am I a progressivist like Cardinal Walter Kasper, Cardinal Cupich and Bishop Robert Barron who share the same fake premise as the conservatives, Michael Voris,Scott Hahn, Robert Fastiggi, Ralph Martin and the apologists at Catholic Answers and EWTN.How can the popes, cardinals and bishops who change the interpretation of the Nicene,Apostles and Athanasius Creed ,with the use of the false premise, be allowed to offer Holy Mass ?
I write this not for the sake of criticism but so that they correct the error.
How can we have a pope who does not have the Catholic faith, who does not believe in the teachings of the Church ? The same could be asked of the cardinals and bishops. They want to interpret de fide teachings with a fake premise, change doctrine and do not deny it. Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Erdo and Cardinal Brandmuller are also in this category.
These cardinals were silent when Pope Francis was not Magisterial on Vatican Council II on the flight from Abu Dhabi.But conservative Catholics were quiet since they do not want to interpret the Council without the same false premise as the pope.
The Acies Ordinata and Coetus International also did not mention that at the Amazon Synod everyone was using a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and create a false rupture with Tradition
The SSPX too will not use the rational premise to interpret Vatican Council.In this way they avoid being Feeneyite on EENS.
Now in Traditionis Custode, Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the same fake premise. In future he will do the same.
The issue is not the Latin Mass but Church doctrine-specifically the common false premise.Why must Catholics interpret Vatican Council II like the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc , Fr. Leonard Feeney and the liberal ecclesiastics ?
When Andrea Grillo a professor of Sacramental Theology and Philosophy of Religion at the Pontifical University St. Anselm in Rome, along with 180 signatories, wrote an open letter ( March 27, 2020) about a year before Traditionis Custode, critical of the Latin Mass, no one mentioned that they were interpreting Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise.
Lionel Andrades
Promotore dell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II. Per lui il Concilio è dogmatico e non solo pastorale.
Scrittore sulla scoperta delle due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II, l'una razionale e l'altra irrazionale, si interpreta l'una con la falsa premessa e l'altra senza. Uno è Magistrale e l'altro, quello comune, è non Magistrale.
Lo stesso vale per i Credo ei Catechismi.
Ci possono essere due interpretazioni.
Perché i cattolici dovrebbero scegliere una versione irrazionale che è eretica, non tradizionale e scismatica, quando c'è un'opzione razionale che è tradizionale?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
AUGUST 4, 2021
Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html
________________
SATURDAY, APRIL 9, 2022
We have returned to the old lex orandi, lex credendi. Even Andrea Grillo in Rome has to go for the Novus Ordo Mass with the old theology. There is no other rational choice. Massimo Faggioli knows there is no way out
Rabbi David Rosen must respect Catholic beliefs and not interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise and force Pope Francis to do the same.
At a talk in Rome the other day, Rosen and Gavin D’costa, were expected to interpret Vatican Council II without the Rational Premise (invisible people are invisible in 2022). This would place Vatican Council II (Rational) in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. There would be no practical exceptions for the Syllabus in the text of the Council( Rational).There would be no exceptions for an ecumenism of return and the need for all non Christians to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation ( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).Vatican Council II interpreted rationally would say that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church, with ‘faith and baptism’( Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II) for salvation ( to avoid the fires of Hell).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (845, 846, 1257 etc) is in line with the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q), on outside the Church there is no salvation. It cites Vatican Council II ( AG 7/CCC 846).Being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) and the baptism of blood(BOB), without the baptism of water, always refers to hypothetical and invisible cases in 1965-2022.They never ever were practical exceptions for Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14).
So there cannot be a Jewish Left-Catholic Left dialogue with both sides using a False Premise (invisible people physically visible in 2022) to interpret Vatican Council II and I.I, BOD and BOB. It produces a False Rupture with traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
The Catholic Church is missionary (AG 7, LG 14) since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell at the time of death without faith and baptism, and there are no known exceptions. As long as they live on earth there is hope. We cannot change the teachings of Jesus in the Catholic Church, as Gavin D’Costa, tried in his book on Vatican Council II (Irrational). He depended upon the False Premise. So the result was the heresy and schism of the liberals. It was a rupture with de fide teachings of the Church. These traditional teachings are not welcome for the Jewish Left and Satan.
Jewish Left rabbis must not tell Catholics to give up Catholic mission since then there will be criminal charges brought against them, and also the Vatican. So what if criminal charges are brought against them when they affirm their Catholic Faith?
It was reported in the daily Avvenire a few years back, when this newspaper was not under the control of the Left, that rabbis Segno and Lara, visited the Vatican offices and warned them all to give up Catholic Mission. Along with members of the B’nai B’rith, they did the same at the Pontifical Urbaniana University, in Rome. The faculty, along with Sandra Mazzolini, have to interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake and not Rational Premise. Then students have to accept a break with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis too has to call the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, as being rigid. He cannot freely affirm it.
Rabbi Rosen visits Rome, after an emergency meeting was held in Chicago, last month with cardinals Sean O’Malley, Oscar Maradiaga and Blaise Cupich, present. The Boston Heresy of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the former archbishop of Boston, surfaced. It was inevitable.
Cardinal O’Malley who for years has been saying on the archdiocese of Boston website that Jews do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, now has discovered Vatican Council II (Rational).It means all the priests in the USA at the Novus Ordo Mass can affirm the Syllabus of Errors (with no exceptions) and Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Since there are no practical exceptions in the text of the Council, when it is interpreted rationally. Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes.Cushing, and not Leonard Feeney used the False Premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I. It was Boston College which was irrational and not the St. Benedict Center.
The direct issue now is Vatican Council II and not EENS. Lumen Gentium does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation as it was held by the Jesuit missionaries in the Middle Ages. So Bishop Robert Barron can no more tell the orthodox Jew, Ben Shapiro, who opposes the Jewish Left, that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception for the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed and other Magisterial Documents, guided by the Holy Spirit, which Barron denied before Shapiro.
This is still the mistake of Gavin D’Costa, and the present Jesuit authors on Vatican Council II (Irrational and not Rational). Cardinal Kurt Koch, Archbishop Arthur Roche and Archbishop Bruno Forte make the same error as Rabbi Rosen and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. They must correct the intellectual mistake.
With the Rational Premise ( invisible cases referred to in Lumen Gentium 16 are physically invisible in 2022), all the Catholic priests can affirm the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed at Holy Mass in all rites and languages. All new religious vocations can do the same. This is a return of the old theology which is in harmony with the Roman Missal (1580) which Cardinal Angelo Donatis has banned with the Latin Mass, for the Easter Triduum next week in Rome. But Vatican Council II (Rational) is not a theological break with the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews. So this Good Friday, Catholics would still be following Jesus and not the ADL and their principal reference will be Vatican Council II ( Rational).Vatican Council ( Irrational) can no more be cited to suggest that there is ‘a revolution’ in the Church; there are ‘the reforms’ of Vatican Council II ( Rational), as Reuters and the Associated Press, call it.
Like the ADL, Cardinal O’Malley and Cardinal Cupich do not want all priests in the USA to offer the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass, while affirming the Syllabus of Errors. But at the meeting of the pro-Jewish Left, 70 cardinals, bishops and liberal theologians in Chicago, there was no way out, no solution. Even Massimo Faggioli realized this. With Vatican Council II (Rational) the Catholic Church returns to the past theology and there is nothing he can do about it. It is the end of division created with liberalism which has its bad foundation upon the Fake Premise ( Lumen Gentium 16 refers to visible cases in the present times).The Church has returned to the theology of St.Maximillian Kolbe in the 1930’s.Even Andrea Grillo in Rome has to go for the Novus Ordo Mass with the old theology. There is no other rational choice. We have returned to the old lex orandi, lex credendi.
-Lionel Andrades
SUNDAY, AUGUST 1, 2021
The present restrictions, in Rome, practically, are not there only for the Latin Mass but also for Mass in Italian. I could cite specific examples when conservative Catholic priests were called up when they interpreted the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance without the common false premise, which is politically approved.
What are their arguments for questioning Benedict XVI’s document?
They are laid out clearly in the accompanying letter. They can also be found on the blog of Andrea Grillo, a lay professor of liturgy at St. Anselm's who has been extremely hostile to Summorum Pontificum. His idea, taken up by the Pope and the crafters of the recent motu proprio, is that the traditional Mass represents a state of doctrine prior to Vatican II while the new Mass represents the doctrine of Vatican II - something we all already knew. Therefore, it was no longer necessary for the traditional Mass to be a right, but only a tolerance, and even then a tolerance only granted to faithful and priests to help them gradually transition to the new Mass.(Emphasis added )
So the main reason is doctrinal?
Yes, and it is very important to say this and to be aware of it because, paradoxically, this is all very providential. It is of course very painful. It will hinder the diffusion of the traditional Mass. It will start new persecutions. But, on the other hand, it puts the finger on what hurts, namely the doctrinal status of Vatican II, which has never been settled.(Emphasis added )
So, the bottom line is that this hatred of the traditional Mass has a doctrinal basis?
Absolutely. It is the hatred of the Tridentine ecclesiology, of all that this Mass represents from the point of view of Eucharistic doctrine as well as the doctrine of the Church.- Italian Bishops and Cardinals were the origin and moving force behind Traditionis Custodes (an Interview with Fr. Claude Barthe) (Emphasis added )
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/italian-bishops-and-cardinals-were.html#more
His idea, taken up by the Pope and the crafters of the recent motu proprio, is that the traditional Mass represents a state of doctrine prior to Vatican II while the new Mass represents the doctrine of Vatican II - something we all already knew.
Lionel
There is a misunderstanding. The liturgy is not responsible for the Tridentine ecclesiology. Since even at the Novus Ordo Mass we can interpret Vatican Council II without confusing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc as referring to physically visible cases instead of physically invisible cases. If it is the latter then there are no practical exceptions in 1965-2021 to the past Tridentine exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
So the present restrictions, in Rome, practically, are not there only for the Latin Mass but also for Mass in Italian. I could cite specific examples when conservative Catholic priests were called up when they interpreted the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance without the common false premise, which is politically approved.-Lionel Andrades
SUNDAY, APRIL 10, 2022
Vatican Council II can only interpreted rationally whether one like it or not. So the conclusion has to be traditional, whether we like it or not. One may not like it and call it ‘this’ or ‘that’ but the Council can only be interpreted rationally and so there is a continuation with Tradition.
Vatican Council II can only interpreted rationally whether one like it or not. So the conclusion has to be traditional, whether we like it or not.
One may not like it and call it ‘this’ or ‘that’ but the Council can only be interpreted rationally and so there is a continuation with Tradition.
One may call the traditional conclusion rigid, extremist, narrow, triumphalistic, etc but Vatican Council II interpreted rationally produces this result.There is no other ratinal choice.
Whether you go for the Novus Ordo, Latin, Greek Byzantine, Syro Malabar or Ambrosial Rite Mass… , Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise, has a continuity with Tradition.
We can no more interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise, False Inference and non-traditional, heretical and schismatic conclusion. We can no more do it since people now know about it. They expect us to be honest.
In England Gavin D’Costa, a professor of theology at the University of Bristol is a liberal and is allowed to attend Holy Mass in English. Since he uses a False Premise to interpret Magisterial Documents and so creates heresy and schism, like the cardinals and bishops in England and this is approved by the Masons. They create division in the Church with the False Premise.
The old concept of being liberal or conservative based upon the Mass in Latin or the vernacular (English/ Italian) is now obsolete.The division does not come with the Latin Mass. The division really depends upon the Fake or Rational Premise in theology. With the Fake Premise there is a New Theology and with the Rational Premise we return to the old theology.
With the False Premise we create exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors which really has no exceptions in real life.
With the False Premise at the Latin Mass there is a theological liberalism and with the Rational Premise there is no liberalism at Holy Mass at all Mass.
With the Rational Premise we become traditionalists like Jesus, in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Was Jesus a ‘triumphalist’ in Mark 16:16 when he said those who do not believe will be condemned?
Was Jesus an extremist in John 3:5 when he said all need the baptism of water for salvation? Of course not. He was telling us about objective reality as it will be after we die. There is a Heaven and a Hell and most people are outside the Catholic Church.
–Lionel Andrades
APRIL 9, 2022
We have returned to the old lex orandi, lex credendi. Even Andrea Grillo in Rome has to go for the Novus Ordo Mass with the old theology. There is no other rational choice. Massimo Faggioli knows there is no way out
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment