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.
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial. Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
CHICAGO — A group of about 70 cardinals, bishops and theologians gathered privately for two days here from March 25-26 for conversations focused on how the U.S. Catholic Church can better support the agenda of Pope Francis.
Through a series of keynote presentations and panel discussions centered on tracing the roots of Francis' papacy to the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, invited participants also considered the opposition the pope continues to face from some quarters of the U.S. church, more than nine years after his March 2013 election.
Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, one of the attendees, told NCR that part of the purpose of the event was to "understand the spirit of what they call the 'opposition.' "
"We have this what they call 'opposition' to the pope. It's trying to build walls, going backwards — looking to the old liturgy or maybe things before Vatican II," said Rodriguez, who is also the coordinator of the pope's advisory Council of Cardinals.
"Vatican II is unknown by many of the young generation," said the cardinal. "So, it's necessary to come back and to see that all the reforms of Pope Francis are rooted in Vatican II."
The event, which carried the title "Pope Francis, Vatican II, and the Way Forward," was co-organized by Loyola University Chicago's Hank Center for the Catholic Intellectual Heritage, Boston College's Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, and Fordham University's Center on Religion and Culture. Also helping with the organization was NCR political columnist Michael Sean Winters.
If Massimo Faggioli would ask Pope Francis if the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance and LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, refer to physically invisible or visible cases in 2019 for him ?.The pope would answer "physically visible". This is common sense.If he would further be asked, "Can invisible people be visible exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?", the pope would say, "No".This is something obvious. Pope Francis would support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.
So Massimo Faggioli can no more interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus fo Errors, Athanasius Creed etc).
The Council is not schismatic. On Vatican Council II and EENS, it supports the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, N.H, USA. There are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. Similarly Lumen Gentium does not contradict Unam Sanctam on outside the Church there is no salvation. Vatican Council II does not contradict the ecclesiology of St.Robert Bellarmine. However Vatican Council II interpreted according to Joseph Ratzinger is irrational and would have to contradict the ecclesiology of St. Robert Belamine and the missionaries of the 16th century. -Lionel Andrades
Michael Sean Winters affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since if asked he would say that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) and LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible and not visible people in 2019. So they are not practical exceptions to the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. I have sent him e-mails of these posts and there is no contradiction from him.
Michael Sean Winters affirms Vatican Council II and also the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since the Council supports Feeneyite EENS when it is interpreted rationally.The Council is Feeneyite.He agrees with me.When he supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on EENS he is not in schism since the Council does the same when interpreted rationally. https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/michael-sean-winters-affirms-vatican.html
With the false premise there are 'objective exceptions' to EENS. There are visible exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed is changed, there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed etc :-
1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.
2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.
3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church. 5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.
7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation. 8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church. 9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case. 10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.
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 istheology: 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.
Irrespective of the Rite it is the False Premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
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.
Pope Francis can still have enculturation as he wishes but it must be with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
Nicole Winfield in the her report on Traditionis Custode for Associated Press interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise. She does not realize that we are Catholics and not leftist politicians.Wikipedia interprets Vatican Council II, EENS and the Cathechism of the Catholic Church with the same False Premise.
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.
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).
Posts
