So irrespective if the Mass is in the vernacular, Latin or Greek, the liturgy can still be the same if the Rational Premise is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Fr. Cekada did not know this. He wrote his books interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise, created a false break with the past ecclesiology and then he blamed the Council.

 

Sacrosanctum Concilium is not a modernist minefield unless you are using the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II, like Don Pietro Leone, Pope Paul VI, Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Anthony Cekada and other sedevacantists.

To change the liturgy there must also be a change in theology.The liturgy cannot be changed in thin air.

Theology was changed long before Vatican Council II with the False Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which the Council Fathers accepted in 1965.

So with there being alleged known salvation outside the Church the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) was made obsolete. It was the end for the Syllabus of Errors. The popes accepted that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were physically visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This was irrational and heretical. It was schismatic and could not be magisterial.

So everything was open to change. This was Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise, by the liberals and traditionalists.

Now we know that we can interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being only hypothetical and invisible cases in 2022. So they are not objective exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors. There is no change in the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So there is no theological opening for the New Ecumenism , New Ecclesiology, New Canon Law and New Liturgy. We are back to the past theology. Sicne the Council does not mention any 'exceptions'.

So irrespective if the Mass is in the vernacular, Latin or Greek, the liturgy can still be the same if the Rational Premise is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Fr. Cekada did not know this. He wrote his books interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise, created a false break with the past ecclesiology and then he blamed the Council.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this. He could have interpreted the Council with the Rational Premise and there would be no change in the ecclesiology of the Church.The Council would be traditional.

The SSPX bishops still do not know this since they did not object when Traditions Custode called for the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the False and not the Rational Premise.

If the Ecclesia  Dei communities would interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise they could offer the Latin Mass with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the 16^th century.

Similarly the USCCB bishops can offer Holy Mass in English and the theology would be the same as in the past.

Catholics have a choice. Why should we interpret Vatican Council II like Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeili (web blog) and Joseph Shaw? They do not want to affirm Vatican Council II (Rational) since then they would have to get back to Tradition and this could upset their interests. The Left would oppose them.

So Don Pietro Leone continues to interpret Vatican Council II like the liberals since it is politically correct and no one is threatened.

 

i)‘With the passage of time…certain features have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals which have made their nature and purpose less clear to the people of to-day. Hence some changes are necessary to adapt them to present-day needs…’ (SC 62); Sacrosanctum Concilium  

ii) ‘The rite for the Baptism of infants is to be revised. The revision should take into account the fact that those to be baptized are babies…’ (SC 67);

 

iii) ‘In mission countries… those elements of initiation may be admitted… insofar as they can be adapted to the Christian ritual...’ (SC 65);

 

iv) ‘The rite of confirmation is to be revised also so that the intimate connection of this sacrament with the whole of Christian initiation may be shown more clearly…’ (SC 71);

 

v) ‘Extreme Unction’ which may also and more fittingly be called ‘Anointing of the Sick’ is not a sacrament for those who are at the point of death. Hence it is certain that as soon as any of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, this is already a suitable time for them to receive this sacrament.’ (SC 73);

Changes could be made since the traditionalists too were interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise like the liberals. The liberals were citing Vatican Council II ( Irrational) to justify changes. The traditionalists could say nothing.Since they were not aware of Vatican Council II ( Rational) as an alternative. -Lionel Andrades

 

 

The Council and the Eclipse of God – by Don Pietro Leone : CHAPTER VII –Man’s Cult of God - Sacrosanctum Concilium: a veritable modernist minefield

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-by-don.html#more

WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF 

VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE

Lionel Andrades

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.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.

 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?

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

___________________