MAY 19, 2022
Social Reign of Christ the King and Vatican Council II (Rational)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/05/social-reign-of-christ-king-and-vatican.html
Mar 22, 2017
Thursday, May 19, 2022
The past moral theology is not contradicted by Vatican Council II, Rational.
With Vatican Council II Rational we are back to the old theology and so also the old faith theology and also the old moral theology.The Council affirms the past ecclesiocentrism
Francis talks feminism with global moral theologian network
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis met for nearly an hour last week with seven representatives of a global network of about 1,000 moral theologians, speaking with them on the role their work plays in helping people understand the deeper roots of Catholic teachings.
Among the topics discussed in the first such meeting between a pontiff and the leaders of Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church: how different countries are receiving Francis' apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the moral teachings behind his encyclical Laudato Si', and differing Catholic perspectives on feminism.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-talks-feminism-global-moral-theologian-network
MAY 19, 2022
Social Reign of Christ the King and Vatican Council II (Rational)
Now Catholics can proclaim the Social Reign of Christ
the King in all politics since there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican
Council II for the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (EENS).
Pope Benedict can no more ask why should there still
be mission when Vatican Council II mentions, for him, that there is salvation
outside the Church and that these are practical exceptions for the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. This is false. There are no practical exceptions for EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.
We know that there cannot be practical exceptions for
EENS, for us human beings. Since if anyone was saved outside the Church it
would only be known to God. The Council is always referring to hypothetical
cases in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. This was not known to
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Pierre Thuc, Plineo Correa de Oliveira,
Michael Davies, Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari. It was not known to them.
So we are back to the old theology and we can judge a mortal sin and we can call a heretic a heretic.The fundamental optionist moral theology ( Bernard Haring etc) came with the false interpretation of Vatican Council II.It came with the False Premise.So the heretic could not be called a heretic since he could be an 'exception' to the rule. We could not judge his motivation was the new theory.We could not judge a mortal sin was the new moral theology.
But with Vatican Council II supporting the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology, we are back to the old theology.There is no change in faith and morals.So a heretic is a heretic and the outward action indicates the internal state of mind (Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II).So we can say that a particular person is a heretic or schismatic. We can say that what a particular person believes is a break with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II (Rational).
With Vatican Councl II irrational a new moral theology was created which said that we cannot judge any one.The old morals were fluid since Vatican Council II eliminated the past ecclesiocentrism in the Catholic Church.
In a government which supports the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics there would not be quick divorces, as it is available today.Also homosexual laws, like the present one, would also not be there.Mortal sin would be mortal sin. -Lionel Andrades
MAY 23, 2018
Cardinale Burke : La regalità di Cristo nei nostri cuori non è un ideale per pochi eletti, ma una realtà a cui tutti siamo chiamati con l’aiuto della grazia divina
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/cardinale-burke-la-regalita-di-cristo.html
(Repost) Cardinal Luiz Ladaria could begin a dialogue with the sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM and invite them into the Church, as he did for the SSPX. Since with Vatican Council II (rational) there is no more reason to remain in sedevacantism because of the Council.
MAY 16, 2022
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria could begin a dialogue with the sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM and invite them into the Church, as he did for the SSPX. Since with Vatican Council II (rational) there is no more reason to remain in sedevacantism because of the Council.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria could begin a dialogue with the sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM and invite them into the Church, as he did for the SSPX. Since with Vatican Council II (rational) there is no more reason to remain in sedevacantism because of the Council.
When the Council is interpreted with the Rational Premise it supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
Presently the SSPX, CMRI and others seem being outside the Church, since the present two popes are interpreting Vatican Council II with a False Premise and creating a false rupture with Tradition.The problem lies at Vatican. The MHFM and CMRI affirm Tradition and reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise, and yet they are made to seem, by the media etc, as being in schism etc.They are correct when they reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise. Howver there is a rational option now available for them.
But with Vatican Council II (rational) now available, it is the popes who seem to be in schism with the past Magisterium – and also in a rupture with Vatican Council II (rational).
They contradict the past Magisterium on Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Catechism etc) but they also contradict Vatican Council II, rational.
There are no practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocenterism in Vatican Council II when LG 8. LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are seen as being only theoretical and hypothetical cases in 2022. They do not contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q, 27Q).So the CMRI and MHFM can accept Vatican Council II (rational) once Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the present two popes do the same.
When the popes interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise it is not magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and also at the same time contradict the past Magisterium.Presently they are not Magisterial on Vatican Council II.How can grown up and responsible men use the Fake Premise ?
When they interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, they will have corrected themselves, and then they will be in harmony with the past Magisterium. There will be the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
In the diocese of Manchester, USA, the CDF and the Judicial Vicar have placed sanctions on the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire and have stopped the Latin Mass at their chapel. But if the Curia in the diocese interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise they would have to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as held by Brother Andre Marie micm, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Similarly lay writers in New Hampshire Damien and Simcha Fischer criticize the St. Benedict Center and the religious community there because of their traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. However if the Fischers interpreted Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, there would be no practical exceptions mentioned in the Council-text for EENS, according to the missionaries in the 16th century. They could go over to the SBC in Richmond, New Hampshire and discuss how they have so much in common in theology and doctrine.
Similarly if Fr. Georges de Laire the Judicial Vicar in the diocese of Manchester, who has placed sanctions on the SBC, would interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, he would be affirming EENS like Brother Andre Marie micm, and would be eligible for the same sanctions. It would be the same with Cardinal Luiz Ladaria. With the Rational Premise he would be a missionary like the Jesuits in the Middle Ages, who affirmed traditional ecclesiocentrism. -Lionel Andrades
The Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican against Brother Andre Marie MICM and the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA was false.Was it also illegal ?
The Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican against Brother Andre Marie MICM and the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA was false.Was it also illegal ? Since a False and not Rational Premise was used to change Church theology and doctrine.Then a rupture with Catholic Tradition,was created, in particular EENS. It was suggested that this was the official teaching of the Church when it only was the teaching of the Church when a False Premise was used.The liberalism comes only with the False Premise.
With the Rational Premise there is no development of doctrine.
The Decree was a rupture with the past Magisterium on EENS etc and so it could not be Magisterial.
Even by secular
standards the Decree was unethical.The CDF chose the False Premise and not the Rational Premise and tried
to impose it upon Brother Andre Marie micm, and the religious community in New Hampshire, USA, with legal threats mentioned in the Decree. This is being dishonest
in public. It was not Catholic but was it also not legal ? -Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria is expected as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and not the common False Premise.He is presently dishonest. With the Rational Premise there is no rupture with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria is expected as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, to
interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and not the common False
Premise.He is presently dishonest. With the Rational Premise there is no rupture with
the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
He also needs to correct the mistake of Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.He confused unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being known and objective exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), according to the missionaries of the 16th century.
This mistake was repeated by subsequent popes, who confused invisible cases as
being visible. Then this confusion was projected as being practical exceptions
for extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the
Athanasius Creed.So the past ecclesiocentrism was made obsolete.
Pope Paul VI could have interpreted
Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and the Council would be
traditional. Vatican Council II would affirm the past exclusivist ecclesiology of
the Church. There would be no break with traditional ecclesiocentrism.There would be no practical exceptions mentioned in the Council-text for the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was heretical and schismatic when it suggested that unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were practical and known exceptions for traditional EENS.But the error was incorported into the Denzinger and then referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
