Monday, June 24, 2024

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) made an error in public in 1949 and then repeated it in 1965 and now they want Archbishop Vigano to accept the mistake. Those who do not accept the mistake in public will be considered schismatic by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF/ Holy Office).

 

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) made an error in public in 1949 and then repeated it in 1965 and now they want Archbishop Vigano to accept the mistake. Those who do not accept the error in public will be considered schismatic by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF/ Holy Office).

CDF/HOLY OFFICE PUBLIC MISTAKES

1. In the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc were considered visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

2. Then at Vatican Council II, Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted LG 8,14,15,16 etc as being visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. So alleged practical exceptions emerged for the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentric. Vatican Council II became a break with Tradition. 

THEY HAD A CHOICE

But they could have interpreted LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being invisible cases. So they are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They are not exceptions for Tradition. Vatican Council II then, for them, would not be a break with Tradition as it is today for Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez.

VIGANO HAS TO ACCEPT THE MISTAKE

Now they are asking Archbishop Carlo Vigano to accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, with the false premise i.e. confusing what is invisible as being visible.

Cardinal Vigano, like the SSPX bishops is already doing this ( using the false premise), but he reject the non traditional conclusion, unlike Pope Francis who accepts it.

FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM

When Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally, then there is no break with Tradition, then Pope Francis and the liberals are in schism. Their liberalism is foreign for the Church.

Archbishop Vigano must announce that he accepts Vatican Council II but only rationally and he will accept Pope Francis when he accepts the Council rationally and so becomes a traditionalist.

Archbishop Vigano is a traditionalist so why must he reject Vatican Council II rational ? He must ask, why should Catholics in general interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez ?-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 23, 2024

But if Vigano and Fernandez choose the rational premise they both return to Tradition immediately.Anyone who uses the rational premise to interpret Vatican Council II immediately returns to Tradition, irrespective if otherwise he is a liberal or conservative.

 

                                                  Photo adapted from LifeSite News


Pope Paul VI used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and create liberalism which was a break with the Magisterium over the centuries. Many lost their vocation. He could have interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise.

The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/ Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican) interpreted the baptism of desire with the false premise. So a false break was created with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. The 1949 LOHO was a public mistake of the CDF ( Holy Office/Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith).


The CDF also made a public mistake when Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Secretary of the CDF asked Brother Andre Marie micm, to accept invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance ( CCC 847-848) as being practical exceptions for CCC 845-846 Outside the Church no salvation) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, of the Council of Florence 1442.

The 1949 LOHO, Vatican Council II  and the CDF Letter to the St.Benedict Center which is posted on the website of the Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire are public mistakes.

So now Archbishop Vigano is being asked to accept the error of the 1949 LOHO and Vatican Council II (1965) and so support the new liberalism based upon the fake premise.

But if Vigano and Fernandez choose the rational premise they both return to Tradition immediately.Anyone who uses the rational premise to interpret Vatican Council II immediately returns to Tradition, irrespective if otherwise he is a liberal or conservative.

-Lionel Andrades






https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/pope-paul-vi-used-false-premise-to.html

UNE 23, 2024

The Professio Fidei of the CDF supports the irrational premise, inference and conclusion

 

MARCH 2, 2020

Repost : The Professio Fidei of the CDF supports the irrational premise, inference and conclusion

FEBRUARY 25, 2020

The Professio Fidei of the CDF supports the irrational premise, inference and conclusion

Authored By: CDF
DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE
 PROFESSIO 
FIDEI  Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
[This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of "Ad 
tuendam fidem" by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin 
codes of canon law.]
4. This new formula of the Professio fidei restates the Nicene- Constantinopolitan
 Creed and concludes with the addition of three propositions or paragraphs intended
 to better distinguish the order of the truths to which the believer adheres. 
The correct explanation of these paragraphs deserves a clear presentation, so 
that their authentic meaning, as given by the Church's Magisterium, will be well
 understood, received and integrally preserved.
In contemporary usage, the term 'Church' has come to include a variety of meanings,
(Lionel:The irrational premise, inference and conclusion would be used to 
change the concept of Church  (ecclesiology).)
which, while true and consistent, require greater precision when one refers to the
specific and proper functions of persons who act within the Church.(it creates an 
artificial rupture with Tradition )  In this area, it is clear that, on  questions of 
faith and morals, the only subject qualified to fulfil the office of teaching with
 binding authority for the faithful is the Supreme Pontiff and the College of 
Bishops in communion with him.8 (They are all interpreting Magisterial documents with the irrational premise, inference and conclusion to 
create a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Athanasius Creed etc).
The Bishops are the "authentic teachers" of the faith, "endowed
 with the authority of Christ,"9 because by divine institution they are
the successors of the Apostles "in teaching and in pastoral governance":
 together with the Roman Pontiff they exercise supreme and full power over
 all the Church, although this power cannot be 
exercised without the consent of the Roman Pontiff. ( They are all interpreting 
Magisterial documents with the false premise , inference and conclusion. )
5. The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained
in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the 
Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,
 sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." The object taught in this paragraph
 is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church
 proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.( It 
really means all Magisterial documents are to be rejected after they are  interpreted with the false premise, inference and conclusion.The confusion 
is obligatory).
These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined
 with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he 
speaks 'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly 
proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.(Ex cathedra 
teachings like the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Creeds,are rejected when the baptism of desire,baptism of blood and invincible 
ignorance are interpreted with an irrational premise, inference and 
conclusion )
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the
 faithful. (They have  to affirm heresy and  schism to be in communion with the new concept of Church)Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt 
or denies them falls under the censure
 of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law..
( He means they have to affirm heresy and schism created with the false premise, inference and conclusion , otherwise they would be censured as 
heretics for affirming rationality and orthodoxy)
6. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and
 hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching 
on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings
 belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully 
keeping and expounding the deposit of faith,
 even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally 
revealed. (This document is also written based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, inference and conclusion.Others have to also interpret 
Vatican Council II in the same way).
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex 
cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught 
infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia 
definitive tenenda".14 
Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these
 truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium,
 and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 
Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic 
doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic 
Church.(So all Catholics have to affirm Magisterial documents with the false
 premise,inference and conclusion  to be considered in full communion 
with the Catholic Church.
So the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) had to doctrinally accept the false 
interpretation of Vatican Council II to recognised canonically.This was 
a doctrinal issue for Pope Benedict.)
7. The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures,
thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths
 which are 
necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while
other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation
 of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake.(He calls
 the use of the false premise and inference to create a non traditional
 conclusion and then calls it a doctrinal
 development). The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as
 formally revealed,
 insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are  not revealed 
or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes  their
 definitive character, 
which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. 
Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic 
development,(dogmas develop for this liberal pope with the use of the false premise, inference and conclusion ) 
the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can 
progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these
 doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.(The deposit of faith 
can develop with the use of the irrationality and  the non magisteial conclusion has to be accepted by all )
8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as 
divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the 
second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect
 to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The
difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first 
paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God 
(doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the 
assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the
 Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).
9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as 
divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with 
an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth
 is solemnly defined by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by 
the action of an ecumenical council.(The ex cathedra teaching of EENS
 has been changed with the irrational interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I. 
Vatican Council II has also been interpreted irrationally in the ordinary Magisterium.) In the case of a non-defining act,
 a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops 
dispersed  throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter.
 Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without 
recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching 
of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed 
(first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). 
Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in 
the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging
 to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal 
Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be 
understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation 
or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition,
 but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by 
the Church.
10. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious 
submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the 
College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if 
they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph 
belong all those teachings ­ on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, 
even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive 
by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic 
expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops
 and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.18 They are set forth in 
order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a 
teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these
 truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.( He means Catholics
 have to overlook all Magisterial documents being interpreted with aritificial
 confusion )
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case
 of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri 
non potest".( He interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion and so the
interpretation would always be erroneous )
11. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples
 of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various 
Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the 
sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real 
and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the 
eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine
 on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence 
of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate 
recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 
the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent
 human being. ( He excludes the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church )
With respect to the truths of the second paragraph, with reference to those connected 
with revelation by a logical necessity, one can consider, for example, the development 
in the understanding of the doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility,
 prior to the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council. The primacy of the Successor 
of Peter was always believed as a revealed fact, although until Vatican I the discussion 
remained open as to whether the conceptual elaboration of what is understood by the 
terms 'jurisdiction' and 'infallibility' was to be considered an intrinsic part of revelation or
 only a logical consequence. On the other hand, although its character as a divinely
 revealed truth was defined in the First Vatican Council, the doctrine on the infallibility 
and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was already recognized as definitive 
in the period before the council. History clearly shows, therefore, that what was accepted 
into the consciousness of the Church was considered a true doctrine from the beginning,
 and was subsequently held to be definitive; however, only in the final stage - the 
definition of Vatican I - was it also accepted as a divinely revealed truth.
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine
 that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing 
to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held 
definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and 
applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary 
and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose 
the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the 
point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
The doctrine on the illicitness of euthanasia, taught in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium 
Vitae, can also be recalled. Confirming that euthanasia is "a grave violation of the law
 of God," the Pope declares that "this doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon
 the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the
 ordinary and universal Magisterium".34 It could seem that there is only a logical 
element in the doctrine on euthanasia, since Scripture does not seem to be aware 
of the concept. In this case, however, the interrelationship between the orders of faith 
and reason becomes apparent: Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every form of the
 kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed in the theory and
 practice of euthanasia.
Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal 
and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of 
prostitution35 and of fornication.36
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which
 are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the 
following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff
 or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic
 facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on
 the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37
As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to
 teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which
 require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; 
this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the
 same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.38
12. With the different symbols of faith, the believer recognizes and attests that he 
professes the faith of the entire Church. It is for this reason that, above all in the earliest 
symbols of faith, this consciousness is expressed in the formula 'We believe.' As the 
Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: "'I believe' (Apostles' Creed) is the faith of 
the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during Baptism. 'We 
believe' (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) is the faith of the Church confessed by 
the Bishops assembled in council or more generally by the liturgical assembly of 
believers. 'I believe' is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as 
she teaches us to say both 'I believe' and 'We believe'".39
In every profession of faith, the Church verifies different stages she has reached on 
her path toward the definitive meeting with the Lord. No content is abrogated with the
 passage of time; instead, all of it becomes an irreplaceable inheritance through which
 the faith of all time, of all believers, and lived out in every place, contemplates the constant
 action of the Spirit of the risen Christ, the Spirit who accompanies and gives life to his
 Church and leads her into the fullness of the truth.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, 
the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-professio-fidei-of-cdf-supports.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-professio-fidei-of-cdf-supports.html
__________________________________

JUNE 23, 2024

Vatican Council II, rational, supports Vigano and not Fernandez

 

                                                                                                                           

                                        - Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 26, 2018











_________________________










_________________________________


When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.

When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.Lionel Andrades


                                                                        CUSHINGISM




FEENEYEISM











________________________________


CARDINAL VICTOR MANUEL FERNANDEZ CHOOSES THE IRRATIONAL RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN SO THERE IS A BREAK WITH TRADITION WHICH IS ESPOUSED BY ARCHBISHOP CARLO MARIA VIGANO.FERNANDEZ WANTS THE BREAK WITH TRADITION FOR POLITICAL-LEFT REASONS.








_________________________________









 







https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/vatican-council-ii-rational-supports.html
_____________________________________

, JUNE 23, 2024

When Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally only - and so honestly, they will be affirming the orthodoxy which Vigano espouses.

 

When Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is asked if he accepts Vatican Council II, he should answer “Yes “and add,” Do Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Fernandez accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally?”

When asked if he accepts Pope Francis as the pope, he should reply, “Yes”, and add, “But only when Pope Francis accepts Vatican Council II interpreted rationally."

With Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally there is heresy and schism.

When Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally only - and so honestly, they will be affirming the orthodoxy which Vigano espouses.

- Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/when-pope-francis-and-cardinal.html



Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)