Don Pietro Leone on the web blog continues to interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise as did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and their supporters at that time (1965).I have mentioned it before that in his article on Ecumenism, Don Leone interpreted Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 with the common False Premise and then projected Vatican Council II as a break with the past exclusivist ecumenism.
I mentioned this to Rorate Caeili via e-mails and there was no response from Fr. Leone. I mentioned it to F.G ( Rorate Caeili) on Twitter and have been blocked by him.He is unable to discuss this issue. If I ask him if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible person he in 2022? He will answer, yes. This is something obvious. He will then have to see the Council as not being a break with Tradition and he will no longer be politically correct with the Left and the liberals.He would have to admit that Lefebvre made a mistake too.
In the present report Leone interprets the Councils like Pope
Paul VI and the liberals and Lefebvrists. He uses the common False Premise. Then he
projects the Council as a break with traditional philosophical concepts.It may not be seen up front always. It is like Redemptoris Missio of Cardinal Ratzinger. It is Christocentric and seems normal and inspiring. But there is a built in error. Cardinal Ratzinger was interpreting Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise. So Redemptoris Missio is not exclusivist. In the same way Done Leone interprets Vatican Council II with the False Premise and there is a break with tradition in philosophy and theology.
But even if this was the irrationality of the Council Fathers in 1965 we can today interpet the Council with the Rational Premise and there is a continuity with Tradition.
In an earlier installment Leone put forward subjective
views and was critical of Vatican Council II.He chooses the break with Tradition.He wants it.
TRADITION IS FEENEYITE AND NOT LEFEBVRIST
There are fundamental differences in the
interpretation of Vatican Council II by Don Pietro Leone and for example, the Slaves of
the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center, New Hampshire.
For the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in
Vatican Council II, refer to only hypothetical and speculative cases. So they are
not objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS for them.The baptism of desire does not contradict Feeneyite EENS for them. But it has to contradict EENS for Leone otherwise he will not be a Lefebvrist but a Feeneyite.
So Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire and then maintained silence. They were warned probably to stay in the camp of the liberals and the Lefebvrists. So they are not saying that the Council is not a break with Tradition. They maintain the politically correct narrative on the Council, for the liberals and leftists.
THEY IMPLY THAT INVISIBLE PEOPLE ARE VISIBLE
For Leone and Pope Francis, LG 8 etc are exceptions for
Feeneyite EENS, so in other words they are objectively visible cases for them
to be exceptions. But this is false. Since if anyone is saved outside the
Church, without faith and the baptism of water, it would only be known to God.
There are no visible cases on earth. No one saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven
without the baptism of water. No one knows someone like Dismas the Good Thief, who has been saved in the present times without the baptism of water.
Don Leone and Rorate Caeili are unable to respond to
the reports on this blog and the messages on Twitter and are going ahead with
the political Left propaganda on Vatican Council II. They are as obsolete as
Pope Francis on the Council.
WE CAN INTERPRET TRADITIONIS CUSTODE RATIONALLY AND THE CONCLUSION IS DIFFERENT
In Traditionis Custode Pope Francis interpreted Vatican Council II like Don Leone and Rorate Caeili. But we can interpret the Council rationally, like Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center,NH and then the Council will be in harmony with the theology of the Roman Missal(1580).
It means there can only be a rational interpretation of LG
8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc and the conclusion is in harmony with the ecclesiology
of the pre-1962 Missal.There is only one interpretation and it has a continuity with the old theology.
The New Missal is based upon Vatican Council II
interpreted with the False Premise.This is how Don Leone,Roberto dei Mattei, Plinio Correa D’Oliveira and Michael Davies saw the Council.
So the condition for offering Holy Mass must only be
Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. This must be the condition for
bishops.It is unethical to use the False Premise after you have been informed.
The Novus Ordo and Latin Mass can be offered with Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise only - and the Rational Premise is in harmony with the past ecclesiology. It is not in harmony with the New Ecclesiology which depends upon the False Premise to project alleged known cases of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
The ecclesiology of the Church does not depend upon the
rubrics of the Mass but the False and Rational Premise, which creates a break
or continuity with Tradition. -Lionel Andrades
The Council and the Eclipse of God – by Don Pietro Leone - Chapter 8 – ‘The Council’s Anthropology in its Ideological Context.’
JUNE 25, 2022
John Henry Weston does not tell Cardinal Gerhard Muller that Vatican Council II interpreted with a Rational Premise is in harmony with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA and also the theology of the Roman Missal (1580).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment