http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/for-cardinal-burke-baptism-of-desire.html
DECEMBER 7, 2016
MARCH 7, 2014
Summorum Pontificum does not say if Vatican Council II is to be interpreted with or without the false premise http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/summorum-pontificum-does-not-say-if.html
NOVEMBER 19, 2013
Ecclesiology is not dependent on the liturgy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/ecclesiology-is-not-dependent-on-liturgy.html DECEMBER 3, 2011 IMPEDIMENT FOR THOSE WHO OFFER THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/12/impediment-for-those-who-offer.html
________________________
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2015
The Vatican must stop linking the Latin Mass with the traditional ecclesiology.I affirm the traditional ecclesiology and attend Mass here in Italian. So Pope Francis' reference to the 'ideology' does not depend upon the Mass.
I avoid the factual mistake of Pope Pius XII, father of the new theology, and so for me the ecclesiology of the Mass in the vernacular is the same as that of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Pope Francis offers Holy Mass with the new ecclesiology, the new theology and the theology of religions based on there being salvation outside the Catholic Church.So since there is salvation outside the Church for him, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected.This is the 'ideology' he prefers.
But I know there is no known case of salvation outside the Church in 2015. I cannot meet, see or know any such person.You may speculate and hope there is such a case but there is no known case in real life. We cannot know of someone saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Assuming that there are such known cases in real life, was an objective mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
I attend Holy Mass in Italian and also the Traditional Latin Mass and there is no difference in theology for me.Ecclesiology has not changed.There is no hermeneutic of rupture for me.Since I do not and cannot know any one saved outside the Church.There is no ambiguity in the text of Vatican Council II for me.I avoid the false premise and inference, and so there is no change in the ecclesiology.
Vatican Council II in its text is not ambiguous. However the text can be interpreted irrationally.So the Council comes across as ambiguous. This aids the 'ideology' of Pope Francis and the liberals.
With the irrational premise (there is salvation outside the Church since people without faith and baptism are visible and known in 2015 even though they are in Heaven) Vatican Council II rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Without the irrational premise Vatican Council II does not reject the dogma and I am aware of this fact.It is with this knowledge that I can attend the Novus Ordo Mass. So with the ideology of the ancient Traditional Latin Mass , opposed by Pope Francis, I am attending the Novus Ordo Mass. Any Catholic can do the same.Even members of the Charismatic Renewal, Focolares and New Catechumenate communities can do the same. All the religious communities can do the same.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davis, the SSPX bishops and priests, assumed there were known exceptions to the dogma in Vatican Council II (UR 3, LG 8, LG 16, NA 2 etc) and this was a break with the old Jesuit missionaries.Now priests who offer Holy Mass in the vernacular can affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis of Assisi... Vatican Council II is in perfect agreement with St.Robert Bellarmine on other religions and ecumenism.We are back to the old ecclesiology irrespective of the liturgy or Rite.
Without the Lefebvre mistake of being able to see the dead-saved with the naked eye, the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass has the same 'ideology'.It is the ideology not approved by Pope Francis.
Without the irrational premise (of being able to see non Catholics in Heaven saved without the baptism of water) the priest who offers Holy Mass today can know Jews need to convert for salvation.He knows this according to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 in Vatican Council II. So there are no known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. This is said not only according to the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews in the Tridentine Rite Mass. This is Vatican Council II!
Ecclesiology is not dependent on the liturgy.One can offer the Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass using a false premise in theology. It is the premise that changes ecclesiology irrespective of the liturgy.
Liturgy is independent of dogma.Today a false premise is being used in the interpretation of magisterial documents. This has continued since 1949 . After Vatican Council II priests who offer Mass in the vernacular and those who offer the Tridentine Rite Mass in Rome use this premise to create a new ecclesiolgy. They are both denying the Catholic faith on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.The Latin Mass societies are faithful to the ritual and Rite but have rejected the old ecclesiology of the Latin Mass.
Even the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) priests offer the Tridentine Rite Mass while assuming there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. With this false premise they assume that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.The problem is with the premise and not the Mass.The Mass in the vernacular is valid and licit but generally the priest who offers it is in material heresy.
Often this heresy is manifest in public.The priest, bishop, cardinal or pope would be in the automatically excommunicated category.Also the same error, the samer heresy, comes up in the Profession of Faith, when they recite the Nicene Creed. They say' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' but mean three or more known baptisms.
Presently the priest offering the Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass has the faculties even when he is in public heresy ( for me) .While the SSPX priests are not being given the faculties since they refuse to accept a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II (Cushingism version).Similarly a priest who offers the Novus Ordo Mass, with Feeneyism as a theology, could lose his faculties during the pontificate of Pope Francis. Theology counts and Catholics are not aware of it.
The Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) is welcomed in new parishes and dioceses since like the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass, they believe there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are not ideological. However if they offered the Novus Ordo Mass and said there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS, they would become ideological.
For me, rationally we are back to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which the Church has not retracted in any Magisterial document. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 can be interpreted in accord with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. CCC 846 on Outside the Church No Salvation says all need to enter the Church as through a door. This was how the Church Fathers described extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC’s 846’s reference to those saved implicitly through Jesus and the Church does not contradict the dogma, since we do not know a single person, saved through Jesus and the Church and without formal entry into the Church.So I affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma and attend the Novus Ordo Mass! The Franciscans of the Immaculate, the SSPX and the sedevacantists could do the same as me.-Lionel Andrades
Bishop Bernard Fellay, like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a doctrinal error on the baptism of desire being visible to us. Could the SSPX also be wrong about the Holy Mass ?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-bernard-fellay-like-archbishop.html
MONDAY, JANUARY 07, 2019
Peter Kwasniewski
Fr. Longenecker has written some fine books and articles. Years ago, I enjoyed and benefited from his book on St. Benedict and St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and his recent book on the historical veracity of the Magi is interesting. Lionel: Fr.Dwight Longenecker and Peter Kwasniewski offer/ attend Holy Mass by reinterpreting Magisterial documents with a false premise .Then with this public heresy they condone sacrilege.
There will be no denial from them. They agree that they interpret invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There is no denial from them since they do not want to affirm EENS like the Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century.
_____________________________________
It would appear that in matters liturgical, however, Fr. Longenecker is out of his depth.
Lionel: They both are out of their depth on matters doctrinal and theological when they assume unknown cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.They mix up what is invisible as being visible and what is subjective as being objective.
They assume unknown cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are known exceptions to EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return. So Vatican Council II is interpreted as a rupture with Tradition. With all this heresy, now known in public, they offer/attend Holy Mass.
_____________________________________
Each claim he puts forward in his article “Twelve Things I Like about the Novus Ordo Mass” can be and has been refuted in the ample literature written on the subject, of which he appears to be ignorant. Indeed, the article betrays minimal knowledge of the history, process, and content of the liturgical reform (as, for instance, well documented in this biography of Annibale Bugnini) and of the contrasting richness of the traditional Mass. Let us walk through Fr. Longenecker’s Twelve Things (printed in boldface).
1. It’s accessible. Having the liturgy in the vernacular helps it to be understood by the people. How can that be a bad thing?
It is characteristic of the rationalism of the liturgical movement (based on its Enlightenment precursors) to prioritize verbal comprehension over a more synthetic and holistic understanding of the mystery of faith, which draws on all the senses and appeals to the heart as well as the intellect. The use of Latin, in addition to being simply what the Western Church did for over 1,500 years, creates for worshipers a numinous and sacral atmosphere that invites meditation and adoration. Lionel: However for 1500 years Catholics at Mass meditated on how there is exclusive salvation in Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church. They did not separate Jesus from exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They did not separate membership in the Church from entry into Heaven.They did not offer/attend the Tridentine Rite Mass as a rupture with the necessity of being a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
Now Kwaniseki and Longenecker deny exclusive salvation in the Church.They deny it in public.They also project BOD,BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , GS 22 etc as exceptions.They agree with me.
So when they deny Feeneyite EENS with a bad premise, they also change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed and the Athanasius Creed. This would be first class heresy for 1500 years. They would not be allowed to attend Holy Mass without a recantation.
But they could not care less. Since at Holy Mass and in their writings, they have to be politically correct with the Left, which generally represent Satan. Mass.
__________________________
Moreover, seeking the goal of easy intelligibility led the reformers to dumb down much of the content of the Mass so that it might not be “too hard.” What is the heavy price we pay for the all too obvious “accessibility” of the Novus Ordo? Superficiality and boredom. It’s so accessible that it “fails to grip,” as P.G. Wodehouse would say. This is why we have a new self-help genre on getting over one’s boredom with Mass and various faddish movements like LifeTeen for pumping up the Novus Ordo. In contrast, the traditional Latin Mass is steep, craggy, and sublime, offering the worshiper the kind of challenge that befits his rational dignity and supernatural destiny, and opening up an endless vista of new discoveries in the age-old prayers and gestures. Lionel: I attend the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass and I am not bored at either.
_________________________
Finally, no literate person is incapable of using a daily missal, where all the antiphons, prayers, and readings may be found in vernacular translations – but without any attempt at an “official” translation of the impossible-to-translate ancient Latin texts, thus avoiding the intractable battles over what “style” and “register” of vernacular should be used in the liturgy. The major prayers of the Mass are fixed and repeated from week to week, so it is not difficult to follow them, as one can see from wee lads and lasses who do this at the traditional Latin Mass.
Lionel: They are there at the Latin Mass(, which is not the Traditional Latin Mass) with a new ecclesiology, new theology, new evangelisation etc,.Otherwise they would not have permission to attend/offer this Latin Mass.Pope Francis encourages the Latin Mass and so do the bishops.
__________________
2. It’s flexible. We’re supposed to honor Latin as the language of our church and it is easy enough to integrate a little or a lot of Latin into th e Novus Ordo Mass. It is also flexible musically. You don’t have to use Haagan Daz, hootenany and soft rock music. Learn Gregorian chant and polyphony. It fits.
The idea that a liturgy should be a matter of “picking and choosing” among options is foreign to the historical development of Christian liturgy in East and West, which has always been toward greater definition, consistency, and stability of liturgical texts, chants, and ceremonies. A liturgy is a ritual action in which the actors lose their idiosyncratic individuality and adopt a persona that befits the mysteries enacted. The clergy should come across not as the ones steering and coloring the enterprise, but as stewards of a treasure they receive and place humbly before the people; the people, for their part, find it easier to pray when the liturgy is not a moving target, but one can enter again and again into the same sacred routine. This intrinsic quality of good liturgy is absent from the Novus Ordo by design.
Lionel: I would attend the Latin Mass offered by the late Mons. Ignacio Barreiro in Rome.He was not willing to affirm Feeneyite EENS like St. Ignatious or Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas....He was protecting his career.
So the liturgy was there but he was not allowed to express the traditional ecclesiology of the Church as for example in the 16th century. This was not the Tridentine Rite Mass of the past.
Then I would attend the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests in Rome after Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum. Again they were afraid to affirm EENS according to the past Catechisms.They would not answer questions from a Catholic about the strict interpretation of EENS.They would not provide their telephone number with a pamphlet citing Dominus Iesus and the CDF Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj. They were afraid.
So there were the vestments and rituals but the traditional faith was missing.
____________________________
Concretely, what does this flexibility end up looking like? We can choose the Roman Canon, that which defines the Roman Rite, or a Eucharistic Prayer patterned after a pseudo-anaphora written by pseudo-Hippolytus and finished on a napkin in Trastevere. We can have the chant that grew up for a thousand years with the rite, or some sentimental piano tune by an ex-Jesuit. We can have Mass facing East in accord with apostolic tradition (as St. Basil and others testify), or we can try our luck with the novel “closed circle” approach of versus populum. We can have people line up for communion in the hand like customers queuing for bus tickets, scattering fragments of the Body of Christ hither and yon, or place the Lord on the tongue of believers kneeling in a posture of adoration. All this great flexibility! The devil delights in it, since it usually plays in his favor... Lionel: The new doctrines with heretical conclusions could also be attributed to the flexibility of Mass in Latin.-Lionel Andrades
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/01/ten-reasons-not-to-prefer-novus-ordo.html#more
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2021
Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican must inform the secular media that Vatican Council II can now be interpreted with a Rational Premise and that there was a mistake in Traditionis Custode(TC). TC interpreted the Council with an Irrational Premise.
In England, Cardinal Vince Nicols needs to tell the politicians, the secular media and the ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue groups, that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and the conclusion is exclusivist, traditional and missionary. Even the Latin Mass Societies in the U.K have to make the correction.
Archbishop Arthur Roche could correct the mistake at the liturgy and theology courses at the Benedictine University of St. Anselm, Rome, which he supervises.
Andrea Grillo, the faculty at St. Anselm, and the signatories against the Latin Mass also must be informed that the old theology of the Latin Mass is not restricted to the old rite. It can also be proclaimed by Catholics at the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian.
Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, former Rector at the University of St. Anselm, has said that there are no practical cases of people being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance who could be exceptions for traditional Benedictine extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is common sense. We cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or the baptism of desire (LG 14) etc. His statement puts an end to the New Theology based upon the False Premise (invisible people are visible in the present times).
It may be mentioned that Traditionis Custode does not say that Vatican Council II should be interpreted with a Rational premise. When Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the False Premise, it is not Magisterial. Instead it is irrational, heretical, schismatic and nontraditional. There is a rational option which has a continuity with the past Magisterium on EENS, Syllabus of Erros, Athanasius Creed etc.
Interpreting Vatican Council II with a False Premise is a mistake. The Holy Spirit cannot make a mistake. Traditionis Custode has made a mistake. Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with a Rational Premise. This is something obvious and not a personal opinion.
Pope Francis also has to announce that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston referenced in Vatican Council II and placed in the Denzinger, has made the same mistake with the False Premise. Unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949. They are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (with no exceptions) as held by Fr. Leonard Feeney. -Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 28, 2021
Traditionis Custode supports a Vatican Council II interpreted with a False Premise. How can it be legal in a canonical or secular sense? The Magisterium cannot make an objective mistake upon which it builds a false liberalism. : Pope Francis must correct the error
Traditionis Custode cannot be canonically legal when it interprets Vatican Council II with a False Premise( what is invisible is considered visible) which is unethical, dishonest and not Magisterial. Its conclusion is schism with the past Magisterium.While I can interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise(what is invisible is considered invisible) and there is no break with the past Magisterium and there is the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. Pope Francis must correct the error. He could announce that all Parish Priests and Rectors should only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise (LG 8,14 and 16 refer to invisible cases in 2021) and the Latin Mass ( and Novus Ordo Mass) should be permitted by bishops for those who accept Vatican Council II and interpret it only with a Rational Premise( invisible cases of LG 16 etc are not not visible) and Rational Inference ( LG 16 etc are not practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus) and Traditional Conclusion( Vatican Council II is in harmony with EENS with no known exceptions.The past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology is intact.We have traditional mission, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue).
IF IT IS NOT INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT HOW CAN IT BE CATHOLIC AND BINDING? When the action and conclusion are not magisterial then it cannot be Catholic. When it is unethical, dishonest and non Magisterial it cannot be binding on Catholics even if it is approved by the present two popes.
It may be approved by the present two popes and also be legal in a political and secular sense, but it is not binding on Catholics since the Holy Spirit could not make an objective mistake by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then rejecting the past Magisterium, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
THE FOUR MARKS OF THE CHURCH (NICENE CREED) INTERPRETED WITH A FALSE PREMISE?
How can the Holy Spirit want Catholics to interpret the Creeds, Catechisms, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance), Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Oath Against Modernism, Oath of Office of a Bishop, the Four Marks of the Church ( Nicene Creed) and Vatican Council II with a False Premise ?
It would mean that at the Eucharist, at Holy Mass, there are believers who reject Tradition and those who accept it, some use a False Premise and others avoid it, so there are two interpretations of Magisterial Documents, two sets of doctrine and theology.
ALL THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES HAVE TO USE THE FALSE PREMISE TO BE LEGAL CANONICALLY.
In Civitavecchia and Lazio, Italy all the religious communities have to interpret Vatican Council II with a False Premise to be canonically legal ?
Why does Cardinal Braz de Avez want the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, to interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise.
Everybody has to interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise to be politically correct with the Left.
The Comitato dell Immaculata permits the bishops in the parish-church Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, to interpet Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise instead of the Rational Premise, which would be Magisterial and also rational.
ITALIAN BISHOPS USE THE FAKE PREMISE AS THE NOVUS ORDO MASS
Bishop Gianluca Ruzza and Emiritus Bishop Gino Reali in the diocese of Porto Santa Rufina, Rome, interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial Documents with a Fake Premise, at the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian. How can this be legal in a canonical or secular sense?
They are morally obliged to inform Christian non Christian organizations to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise.
I repeat, Pope Francis must correct the error. He could announce that all Parish Priests and Rectors should only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and the Latin Mass ( and Novus Ordo Mass) should be permitted by bishops for those who accept Vatican Council II and interpret it only with a Rational Premise.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/traditionis-custode-supports-vatican.html _____________________________________________
DECEMBER 27, 2021
Chrism Mass at the Cathedral
CHRISM MASS AT THE CATHEDRAL
The Ecclesia Dei communities could contact the Comitato dell Immaculata, Rome. They have an understanding with a bishop, where their seminary and old church building is located.May be the Latin Mass will be available again in the parish with the approval of the bishop.
The lay organization Comitato dell Immaculata permit the adjoining new church of Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea to function physically, infrastructure-wise. This is done in cooperation with Mons. Gianrico Ruzza, Apostolic Administrator of the diocese of Porto –Santa Rufina and Mons. Gino Reali, the emeritus bishop of Porta Santa Rufino.
A large part of the premises is owned by the Comitato where the church Santa Maria di Nazareth, has Holy Mass in Italian.This is in the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina.
The Latin Mass is no more available in the parish but the Latin Mass is not banned in Rome. So maybe once again the Latin Mass could be made there in the parish, with the approval of Mons. Gianrico Ruzza, who is also the bishop of Civitavecchia-Tarquinia, Italy. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICTKSP) etc could use the old church building or the seminary chapel, which is dusty and unused. Then there are the Franciscans of the Immaculate also, which is not technically an Ecclesia Dei community and had been offering Holy Mass in Italian and Latin in the parish.
But if the Ecclesia Dei communities or the Franciscans of the Immaculate, were to come to this parish, with the approval of all concerned, are they going to concelebrate at the Chrism Mass in the cathedral ? Bishop Gian Ruzza and the diocesan priests must agree to interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial Documents, with the Rational Premise, in harmony with Tradition.This is the tradition which the Ecclesia Dei communities and the Franciscans of the Immaculate support.
This could be easy for the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian. They simply have to interpret Church documents with a Rational Premise, and then affirm them, with their traditional conclusion. There will then be no break with the Jesuit missionaries of the 16th century. Their ecclesiology will be the same as the initial nine centuries, when England was Catholic.
However Mons. Gianricco Ruzza must first affirm the Catholic faith. This is a political issue. But this is also a chance for doctrinal and theological unity among all priests. There will no more be two sets of doctrines; Vatican Council II with or without the False Premise, extra ecclesiam nulla salus with or without the Rational Premise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony or in a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Athanasius Creed, compatible or incompatible with the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Nicene Creed, a break or continuity with the past.The good Joseleitos de Cristo priests from Brazil, would gain from the doctrinal unity being encouraged by the bishops. The hard working priests from Brazil could follow traditional Church doctrine in harmony with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. –Lionel Andrades http://www.diocesiportosantarufina.it/home/pages.php?dpid=3
Posts
