TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
When it is pointed out that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational and that Archbishop Lefebvre, the popes and liberals chose the irrational one,they made a mistake which is being followed by the traditionalists today , usually the response of Michael Matt at the Remnant is to highlight the decline of the faith, the woes and errors after Vatican Council II, as if this is being disputed.
VATICAN COUNCIL II CUSHINGITE HAS TO BE A RUPTURE WITH TRADITION
With Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise there would have to be an irrational and non traditional inference. This common irrational and heretical interpretation of the Council I call Cushingism.One does not have to be a theologian to see that Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism is a rupture with Tradition.
ABP.LEFEBVRE WAS A CUSHINGITE
Archbishop Lefebvre was a Cushingite. He could only interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. He did not know of the alternative interpretation, which I call Feeneyism.With Feeneyism, Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and inference and the Council is not a rupture with Tradition.
Michael Matt refuses to discuss this point. Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Cushingite? Can he and the SSPX interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism?
Over the last few years I have been mentioned this and his response is to tell us about the history of the Church since Vatican Council II( interpreted with Cushingism).
Obvioiusly if Archbishop Lefebvre and the popes and cardinals will interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with innovative Cushingism there will be a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the past ecclesiology of the Church.I do not disagree here.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct Vatican Council II ( only Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition.It was the responsibility of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to inform Archbishop Lefebvre that Vatican Council II without the irrational premise was in harmony with Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre died not knowing this.
There was no opposition to the liberals after 1965.They used a false premise to project Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. No one showed Fr. Hans Kung where he was wrong.
At the Remnant there is a report VINDICATED: The Traditional Catholic Movement, which does not mention that the traditionalists of that time were all Cushingites as are the traditionalists of today.
They all had it wrong on Vatican Council II and were following the false interpretation of the liberals and Masons. Not a single one of them wrote an article on how Vatican Council II and EENS can be re-interpreted to be in harmony with EENS.Walter Matt, Michael Davies and Hamish Fraser did not know.
I know they were good and well meaning Catholics who cared for the Church but they just did not have that insight to see the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism.
Now after 50 years and more than a thousand reports on the Internet on the subject of Cushingism and Feeneyism on how Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, he still cannot discuss it ?Over the last four years or more, annually, he organizes a conference ignoring this point and telling us what we already know.He probably does not know that Vatican Council II, Cushingite is the cause of the theological and doctrinal confusion in the Church and the error can be correct.
LATIN MASS OFFERED WITH THE NEW THEOLOGY BY THE SSPX
The Traditional Latin Mass today is being offered by the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) with the New Theology.So they also interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) with the New Theology.They also interpret Lumen Gentium 8,14, 16 etc in Vatican Council II with the New Theology.
SSPX INTERPRETS BOD, BOB AND I.I WITH CUSHINGITE THEOLOGY
Then the traditionalists go back in time and re-interpret BOD, BOB and I.I in the Catechisms, for example of Pius X, with the New Theology to create a rift with the past ecclesiology. So now they even interpret traditional EENS with the New Theology.BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS for them. In other words they refer to visible and known people saved outside the Church. This is their Cushingite reasoning.
These are traditionalists!!!
BOD, BOB AND I.I ARE NOT CUSHINGITE FOR ME
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are not Cushingite. They refer to only hypothetical cases.So BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the Catechism of Pope Pius X is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
BOD, BOB and I.I ,in themselves, are not a rupture with EENS either, for me.
So there is only EENS, Feeneyite, for me.
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NOT CUSHINGITE FOR ME
Similarly LG 8, LG 16 etc being hypothetical cases only for me are not a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite). So this is Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) which is in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite) and the past ecclesiology of the Church.
Since there is only EENS Feeneyite for me, there can only be an ecumenism of return and no New Ecumenism.
Since there is no known salvation outside the Church we are back to the old theology and there is no New Theology for me.
MISSION IS FEENEYITE AND NOT CUSHINGITE FOR ME
With Vatican Council II not mentioning any known salvation outside the Church for me,LG 8 etc being only theoretical and hypothetical, there can only be traditional Mission doctrines which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. All people in general are on the way to Hell and not only 'those who know' and who are not invincible ignorance. Ad Gentes 7 refers to 'all'.It includes those who know and have the Gospel preached to them(AG 7).
See the difference?
It is only a small premise and see the big difference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Michael Matt writes:
Editor’s Note: NEWSFLASH: Being ‘rad trad’ is now very much en vogue. (No it is not) I guess nobody wants to be on a losing team, and Team Bergoglio will surely never make the playoffs. Strange days indeed! Folks who were defending the regime just a few months ago are suddenly presenting themselves as traditionalists who’ve more or less been here all along. (They are not aware of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's Cushingite mistake and Michael Matt will not tell them about it.) Good for them! Welcome to the front, boys.(How can you go to the front with heresy and schism ? Your fighting on the wrong side) Still, natural justice impels us to recall that the pioneers of Traditionalism didn’t need to be on any winning team. (They did not know about Vatican Council II, Feneeyite and inspite of so many reports on the Internet don't seem to want to know about it ) In fact most of them were losers for Christ, who died excommunicated or otherwise disgraced for the lonely stand they took.(The SSPX bishops let Archbishop Lefebvre be excommunicated since they could not tell Cardinal Ratzinger that he made an objective error in his interpretation of Vatican Council II. Even today when they are asked to accept a Cushingite version of Vatican Council II for canonical recognition, they are clueless. They should be telling Ecclesia Dei that they affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).The Council is no more an issue for them and they expect the CDF to also affirm Vatican Council II ). But history will cast them as the heroes they surely were—men and women who didn’t require a buffoon like Francis to help them recognize a massive problem in the Church that had first outed itself in the Vatican, not in 2018, but sixty years earlier in 1958. Francis is hardly the ramrod. His arrival on the scene was as inevitable as sunrise. But now that resisting Modernist popes is all the rage, some Internet heroes are out there denouncing men such as Archbishop Lefebvre for doing fifty years ago what they finally mustered the courage to do just a few months ago. This article is dedicated to the pioneer traditionalists—men who did their Catholic duty and became traditionalists long before Traditionalism was cool. Let’s never forget. MJM
-Lionel Andrades
When you send your money to Cushingite traditionalists or liberals you contribute to heresy and schism in the Catholic Church
OCTOBER 26, 2018
Michael Matt has nothing to say on the Cushingite error of Archbishop Lefebvre and present -day traditionalists
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/michael-matt-has-nothing-to-say-on.html
When you send your money to Cushingite traditionalists or liberals you contribute to heresy and schism in the Catholic Church
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/when-you-send-your-money-to-cushingite.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment