At the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly. The 1969 Novus Ordo Mass is not a “departure from the traditional Eucharistic Faith”, when the Council is interpreted rationally.This can be verified. Bishop Vitus Hounder does not seem to know this.

Lionel : At the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly. The 1969 Novus Ordo Mass is not a  “departure from the traditional Eucharistic Faith”, when the Council is interpreted rationally.This can be verified. Bishop Vitus Hounder does not seem to know this.

The crisis of the Church is a consequence of a partial apostasy from the transmitted faith, tradition, and practice of the faith,' says Bishop Vitus Huonder.

(LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Vitus Huonder, a retired bishop of the Swiss diocese of Chur, has issued a critique of the Novus Ordo Mass as it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. In his eyes, a “partial apostasy” in the Church has taken place in recent decades, and the “departure from tradition is felt most painfully in the changed rite of the holy sacrifice of the Mass.”

Lionel: The ‘partial apostasy’ comes with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally at even the Tridentine Latin Mass.

Bishop Huonder made these statements in a May 3 message that is the second installment of a series of videos currently being released.

In the first installment, the Swiss bishop explained his own learning process with regard to the understanding of the Church, especially after being asked in 2014 by the Vatican to make a visitation to the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The SSPX has remained loyal to the Church’s traditional faith and sacraments, especially the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). Huonder has lived in an SSPX house since his retirement in 2019.

Its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, could not go along with the changes entering the Church with and in the wake of the Second Vatican Council and thus came into conflict with Rome. Ultimately, he was excommunicated in 1988. Today, Bishop Huonder thinks that Lefebvre’s “attitude was factually justified and entirely in line with the Faith of the Church.” 

Lionel: Archbishop Lefebvre was interpreting Vatican Council II like the liberals and the Masons. The difference between him and them was that he rejected the Council with the non traditional conclusion and they accepted it. He did not seem to know that the Council could be interpreted rationally and the conclusion would be traditional. He made the same mistake with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). That Letter confused physically invisible cases of the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so exceptions for the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The 1949 LOHO was a political document approved by the Left.The aim was to do away with traditional ecclesiocentrism.The SSPX supported the LOHO and the Left and criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney who was only following the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.Neither of these two Councils projected BOD and I.I as exceptions for EENS.

 “He should have been listened to more,” Huonder added in his first video message. “The measure taken against him [by the Church’s hierarchy] was a grave injustice, because it is easy to prove that the Church’s government has moved away from Tradition.”

Lionel: Bishop Hounder is correct here. The Church’s Government has moved away from Tradition with their heretical and schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II. The SSPX did well when they did not accept this version of the Council. Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney were excommunicated for not accepting the political and irrational interpretation of Church Documents by the hierarchy, who were not Magisterial on this issue.

In his second video (which can be watched with English subtitles here (and below), Huonder deals with one of the changes that came into the Church after the Second Vatican Council, that is, the Novus Ordo Mass. He reminds his audience that the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, insisted that “there should be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” and that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

“Nevertheless, a greatly changed new rite is presented,” Bishop Huonder expounds, “with an equally changed theology of the Mass.” He describes the 1969 Novus Ordo Mass as a “departure from the traditional Eucharistic Faith.”

Lionel: The theology of the new Mass and New Missal is different because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. The false premise and inference chosen in the interpretation of the Council creates a rupture with the ecclesiology of the 1962 Missal. There are alleged exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc. There is an irrational interpretation of all the Catechisms.

This is not permanent. Since the theology does not depend upon the Mass but the fake or rational premise. With the rational premise the Church returns to the past ecclesiology at the Latin, Novus Ordo, Syro Malabar and other rites. The theological division in the Church ends. This can be verified in public by Bishop Hounder.He simply has to interpret physically invisible cases of LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only invisible.This was the traditional rational premise.He returns to the old theology.

Here the Swiss prelate refers to a commission which reviewed the new Mass in 1969 and concluded that it is “evident” that “the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent,” to which, however, “the Catholic conscience is bound forever.”

Lionel: The commission was correct. With the irrational premise and inference, in the interpretation of BOD and I.I and then LG 8,UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II - there is a new faith. It says outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation. So all do not need to be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, to avoid Hell. This was the New Theology.It was there at every Mass in every Rite throughout the world in 1969 and was supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).

CDF MAKES THE SAME MISTAKE EVEN TODAY

Even today the CDF makes the same mistake. In a communiqué to Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior, at the St. Benedict Center,New Hampshire, the Archbishops Morandi and Di Noia interpreted CCC 847-848 on invincible ignorance, as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS and the Councils of 1215 and 1442. This is irrational. When it is repeated after being informed it is dishonest. The error can be read on the website of the Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire ( Decree of Prohibitions etc).

 This quote originates in the critique of the Novus Ordo Mass made by the late retired Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, as well as the late Cardinal Antonio Bacci. The document is now usually called the “Ottaviani Intervention.”  Another prelate of the Catholic Church, the late Cardinal Alfons Stickler, endorsed this critique later, in 2004, by saying: “The analysis of the Novus Ordo made by these two cardinals has lost nothing of its value, nor, unfortunately, of its timeliness …The results of the reform are deemed by many today to have been devastating. It was the merit of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to discover very quickly that the modification of the rites resulted in a fundamental change of doctrine.”

Lionel: They did not know that ‘the fundamental change in doctrine’ had come with the irrational and not rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, by all of them, including Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

In Huonder’s eyes, that above-mentioned departure from the Faith of the Council of Trent as manifested in the Novus Ordo Mass can be seen even more clearly in Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the liturgy, Desiderio Desideravi,which presents “a predominantly Protestant conception of the Holy Mass.” While the Pope himself claims that his exhortation is based on the conciliar texts, the Swiss bishop disagrees with him.

Lionel: When Vatican Council II is interpreted irrationally then there is ‘a departure’ from the Council of Trent which affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS. The Council of Trent for example, mentions ‘the desire thereof’. This was later referred to as the baptism of desire, by even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But this baptism of desire was invisible for Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston and visible for Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvre. So there were two different premise.The restult was two different conclusions at that time.One was traditional and the other nontraditional.One supported the past ecclesiocentrism and the other rejected it. Even today there are two interpretations of BOD and I.I. There is the interpretation of the SSPX and that of Brother Andre Marie micm at the St.Benedict Center, Richmond, NH. We have the same Vatican Council II before all of us but there are two ways of reading it.

Turning the usual understanding of the two forms of the Roman rite – ordinary (Novus Ordo) and extraordinary (TLM) upside down, Huonder makes the following statement: “The liturgy of the Church handed down until Vatican II is essentially the authentic Roman liturgy.”

Lionel: ‘The liturgy of the Church handed down’ until the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, was still traditional.The theology was still traditional.-Lionel Andrades

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/watch-retired-swiss-bishop-living-with-the-sspx-says-novus-ordo-mass-is-departure-from-tradition/?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=usa