Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Traditonal Latin Mass being targeted : Catholic blogs and websites are not discussing the real reason

Feast of the Assumption_07The Traditonal Latin Mass is being targeted all over the world when Catholics associated with this Mass reject Vatican Council II ( with the dead man walking premise) and do not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted traditionally without this strange pemise. Catholic institutions associated with this Mass are also being threathened or criticized by the leftist lobbies.
The Fischer-More College is not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. No reason is given.
The National Catholic Register removed a post encouraging the Holy Father to seek a reconciliation with the SSPX. No explanation was given.
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf recently wrote a positive piece on the SSPX and said that their Mass was valid. The next day he completely changed the report. No reason was given.
Rorate Caeili posted reports on objective errors of the International Theological Commission. A rabbi who teaches Ecumenism at the University of St.Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum),Rome  phoned 'New Catholic,' the Editor of Rorate Caeili ( who still does not use his real name as a Catholic). The reports were pulled down. No explanation was given.
The apologist Dave Armstrong refuses to comment if Vatican Council II can be accepted without  the false premise.He would never affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Mons. Ignacio Barreiro who offers the TLM in Rome once told me frankly that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times but he would not affirm the traditional position of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The Rector of the Santissma Trinta dei Pellegrini,  the FSSP church in Rome, Fr. Joseph Kramer offers the TLM without the extra ecclesiam nulla salus 'ideology'.  There are persons opposing  the TLM in Rome.
There are threats to Catholics who offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the ideology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Then they are forced to accept Vatican Council II with an irrational premise, which makes the Council non traditional, liberal and non Catholic.
Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I who has opposed his Superiors in his community the Franciscans of the Immaculate and made the  TLM  an issue, is now silent when I ask him if Vatican Council II can be accepted without the visible- dead theory.
Can one offer or attend the TLM while interpreting Vatican Council II without the visible- dead being exceptions to the dogma on salvation ? Neither will he or the apologist Dave Armstrong answer. They will not say that they do not know the answer. Neither will they  say that they do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They will not say that I am correct. They just do not want to have any thing to do with this subject.
Yet there is so much written on the blog of Dave Armstrong and Fr. Angelo Geiger (Mary Victrix) on the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass, the SSPX etc. The apologist Armstrong has probably  written books on this subject in which he has used the irrational premise.
Similarly there has been so much written by Roberto dei Mattei on Vatican Council II which is rational and he has reasoned well. He is correct that confusion has come into the Catholic Church after Vatican Council II. But he does not realize that all that good reasoning of his was based on a false premise. If he avoided that premise he could still reason well and his conclusion would be different. He would reason out how Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition; with the dogma on exclusive salvation , the Syllabus of Errors etc.
So the TLM continues to be targeted for the wrong reasons. It is assumed that it is a rejection of the new ecclesiology, in which Jews  and other non Catholics do not have to convert. There is this misunderstanding of the TLM since it is assumed that Vatican Concil II (with the false premise) has discarded the old ecclesiology with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
No apologist is defending the TLM and Vatican Council II without the use of the false premise, the dead man walking theory.
We have many Catholics who do not want to speak the truth on this subject since they do not want to lose their reputation, their blogs or websites, or have to be penalized in some way.
So Fr.Angelo Geiger and Dave Armstrong will continue to write the same nonsense about Vatican Council II and the TLM. Patrick Archbald and Michael Voris will not affirm a Vatican Council II without the false premise. The National Catholic Register and Rorate Caeili will not discuss this subject since it is 'sensitive'. So they will continue to post reports on Vatican Council II accepted with the irrational interpretation. The Catholic Herald, U.K does not want to be sued under anti-Semitism laws. So they criticize the SSPX and do not affirm the dogma on salvation.Fr.John Zuhlsdorf will not discuss this subject.


Matthew Roth said...

But Fr. Feeney WAS in the wrong! He denied baptism by blood and by desire. The case of St. Magnus, a Roman centurion killed with Christians in the 3rd or 4th century (and whose relics are at St. Martin of Tours, Louisville KY) disproves him in just one example. The Church has always clearly taught that baptism under those forms does in fact unite one to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Anonymous said...

We need a little black book of persecution: you left out the reporters being fired: Palmaro, Gnocchi & de Mattei; Church Militant criticizing by name and article Remnant (Ferrara) and Catholic Family News (Vennari) [and calling their work pornography while the pope has a homosexual porn star leading the cardinals and youth in dance at Rio World Youth Day]; Rorate cutting off comments (shortly after pope's election - too many critical comments). I trace the beginning to the bloggers conference that was held in Rome during Benedicts reign. Catholic Culture cut off their "Diogenes" column. You can tell who either has priests on board, is dependent on the N.O. church for money in some way, or those who will write whatever priest/ bishop says if it gets them in print and/or invited to conferences!



Catholic Mission said...

Matthew Roth

But Fr. Feeney WAS in the wrong! He denied baptism by blood and by desire.

Are you referrring to invisible for us or visible for us baptism of desire ?

Matthew Roth
The Church has always clearly taught that baptism under those forms does in fact unite one to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Yes it does .

However are these cases possibilities, known only to God, or they known exceptions to the dogma on salvation ?