Cushingites Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre were interpreting the Nicene Creed with error

From Rorate Caeili

Guest Note: "Paul VI: the 'Pastoral' Canonization of the Spirit of Vatican II" -- by Fr. Pio Pace

Francis tomorrow will proceed with his sanctification procedure of the worst Pope ever, Paul VI -- not even he, Francis, unleashed such destructive forces upon Holy Mother Church as Paul VI (despite the couple of things he did right). 

Lionel :He was a Cushingite like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. They both were interpreting Vatican Council II with the same irrationality.

The SSPX bishops are still making the same mistake.

___________________________

Earlier this year, our contributor Fr. Pio Pace, an expert in Romanitas, gave us his opinion on the astonishing "canonization of Paul VI." It is merely an excuse to canonize the horrendous"Spirit of Vatican II".

Lionel : There is no 'spirit of Vatican Council II' when Vatican Council II is interpreted with Feeneyism ( invisible people are just invisible) instead of the common Cushingism( invisible people are visible).This is the false premise used to interpet the baptism of desire etc in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc in Vatican Council II.

______________________________

***

Paul VI: a "Pastoral" canonization?

Fr. Pio Pace

Perhaps Paul VI had remarkable and heroic virtues in his private and secret life. But, as Pope, he is the object of not little debate: he promulgated the most liberal texts of the Council (Gaudium et Spes, Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae); he led a liturgical reform that turned sacred liturgy upside down and inside out; and several other things, big and small, such as the suppression of the extremely ancient and venerable Roman Subdiaconate.


Paul VI fully embodies Vatican II. It is precisely for this reason that he has been chosen for canonization, as the Popes of the Council and post-Council, who have been canonized one after the other: John XXIII, John Paul II...

Is Paul VI presented to the Church as an example due to the publication of Humanae Vitae? Or rather for his "ecumenical gestures", such as having given in 1966 to the archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, his pastoral ring and a chalice -- which allowed Cardinal Coccopalmerio to affirm that the Anglican ordinations could be considered valid: "What could it mean for Paul VI the fact of giving a chalice to the archbishop of Canterbury?

Lionel: It meant that he interpreted Vatican Council II assuming UR 3 ( Decree on Ecumenism) referred to known Christians saved outside the Church. For him there were personally known Christians saved outside the Catholic Church, without Catholic faith. This was the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which he approved of.

Since there was salvation outside the Church for him there was the birth of a new ecumenism. It also meant that non Catholic spouses in Mixed Marriages could also receive salvation, while being outside the Church.So the Catholic spouse was not in adultery.The marriage was a Sacrament for him as long as a dispensation was received from the local bishop.

This was the New Ecclesiology of the Catholic Church for the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass of his time.

________________________

If it was to allow for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, it was out of consideration for valid ceremonies, right?" And we could go on: John Paul II was an example for the solid defense of Humanae Vitae, or rather for having organized the sadly famous "Assisi meeting"?

Lionel: Since there was salvation outside the Church for the SSPX bishops who were not Feeneyites, Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger were open to inter-faith dialogue, like Cushingites, at Assisi.

_________________________

We must dare say it: by canonizing all Vatican II popes, it is Vatican II that is canonized.

Lionel: Vatican Council II , Cushngite is canonized unfortunately. Since traditionalists do not want to be called Feeneyites and re-interpret the Council in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church.

Pope Paul VI made a mistake when he assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)were visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.But Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvre made the same mistake. So we cannot only put the blame on Pope Paul VI.

____________________________

 But, likewise, canonization itself is devalued when it becomes a sort of medal thrown on top of a casket. Maybe a council that was "pastoral" and not dogmatic is deserving of canonizations that are "pastoral" and not dogmatic.

Lionel : The Council is pastoral but when it is interpreted with Cushingism ( invisible non Catholics are visible outside the Church and they are saved without Catholic faith) then the Council contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Then it becomes dogmatic.

It has done away with the ecumenism of return.

It has changed no salvation outside the Church associated with the old liturgy.

It has changed the traditional motivation for Mission.

It has changed the interpretation of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed says ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.For me it refers to one  known baptism, the baptism of water.

Most Catholics interpret this to mean ' I believe in three or more known baptisms and they are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood etc, all without the baptism of water'.

In the Nicene Creed we refer to the Holy Spirit.For me the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church to teach outside the Church there is no salvation. For others, it guides the Church to teach that outside the Church there is known salvation.

In the Nicene Creed we refer to the one Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church which for me says outside the Church there is no salvation. For  the traditionalists it is outside the Church there is no salvation except for the cases of the baptism of desire etc. In other words the baptism of desire etc refer to known people saved outside the Church. If they were invisible cases they could not be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they were visible cases for Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre. 
But they are invisible cases! This is common sense. Pracrtically we cannot see a BOD, BOB and I.I. case. Literally there is no baptism of desire for us human beings.

 Now we know that the baptism of desire etc refer to invisible cases in the present times. They never ever were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was not known to Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre. It still is not known to  the SSPX bishops and priests and bloggers today.

-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Lefebvre did not see the error and so Paul VI was not corrected

From Rorate Caeili

Vatican II at 56: Like all Totalitarianisms of the 20th Century, Vatican II will still cause great havoc

Lionel : It will not cause great havoc if you interpret it rationally. Archbishop Marcel Lefebver and the SSPX bishops did not know about this.

_________________________

The Second Vatican Council was opened in Rome exactly 56 years ago, on October 11, 1962. John XXIII had chosen this day, the Feast of the Divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin, a memento of the Council of Ephesus, as the day of its beginning. Irony of ironies: the whirlwind generated by the Council that would almost extinguish the Traditional liturgy of the Roman Church included the abolition of the Feast on this day and the transformation of the Octave Day of Christmas in a similar solemnity.

Lionel: Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre were interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational premise. 

The mistake can be seen in Matrimonia Mixta of Pope Paul VI which Archbishop Lefebvre did not correct. Matrimonia Mixta cites Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism 3 as if it is an example of known salvation outside the Church. This is an irratiional premise. There is no known case of a Christian saved outside the Church. There was none in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued, there was non in 1965 and neither any such case in 2018.

Since then the liberals, Masons and the SSPX have been interpreting UR 3 as referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So their New Theology is outside the Church there is salvation.

_____________________________

There are several ways to understand Vatican II, but one has perhaps been overlooked. It is often said that the Council was a "reaction" of transformed European bishops, "horrified" by the Second World War. And yet... those were men of the 20th century, marked by the great movements of the 20th century, both of which -- Communism and Fascism/National-Socialism -- were characterized by a hatred of the past and tradition, and a love for the New Man, the New Society, the New World. All things, all traditions, all families, all institutions, and all individuals that were obstacles to the construction of the New Socialist State, the New People, the New Volk were to be abolished forever.

Lionel: The cause was much simpler. We can avoid the false premise today and the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.

________________________________

The Church had stood as a fortress against both menaces, but, within the Church, despite the best efforts of Saint Pius X, the yeast of Modernism had never been scoured away. No wonder that John XXIII's imprudent call for the Council woke up all men who were imbued with the spirit of the time, and this spirit was the same of the totalitarianisms: hatred of Tradition, an urge to purge the past, the need to build a new Church, actually a new "People of God": Das Volk Gottes.

Lionel: They got rid of Tradition by using a false premise to create a new theology, an irrational way to interpret the Council. They got away since Archbishop Lefebvre and the traditionalists of that time did not see the mistake.

_________________________________

We traditional and conservative Catholics have often thought that the end of the nightmare that began on that October 11, 56 years ago, was about to come.

Lionel: It will come when Catholics see the error which can be avoided. Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with Tradition. But then there will be opposition from the Left. Are Catholics prepared to affirm this interpretation of the Council which will be in harmony with the past ecclesiology and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? 

__________________________________

 They tried to end everything, even the most cherished legacy of our Fathers in the Faith, the Traditional Latin Mass. And they almost succeeded, had it not been for a faithful remnant. Again and again, the hopes of faithful Catholics have been dashed.

Lionel: The liberal bishops approve the Traditional Latin Mass which is offered with the same New Theology, the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology and New Evangelisation of the Mass in the vernacular, which is a rupture with Tradition.

______________________________________

And it has only gotten worse: Francis is practically a caricature of a Vatican II liberal. Just as all totalitarian regimes, the "Conciliar Church" creates a destructive vortex, in which the whole Volk has to be completely wiped out with the leader: in our case, the leader is an abstract idea, the "Spirit of Vatican II".

Lionel : Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II like the traditionalists. He uses the false premise. 

_______________________________________

Yet our hope remains that this too shall pass: just as the peoples were not destroyed after their totalitarian leaders died, our Church, greater than any single national people, will remain standing, with the Cross of her Bridegroom, Savior of Mankind:

Lionel : This interpretation of Vatican Council II by the  traditionalists and Catholics in general I believe will also pass away.

-Lionel Andrades

What I believe as a Catholic : this is not just a pesonal opinion

 OCTOBER 17, 2018

So I am ponting out to what the Catholic Church teaches and what I believe as a Catholic

I am aware of the general apostasy in the Church with the present two popes down to the parish priests, restors, superiors and religious sisters, interpreting Magisterial documents with Cushingite, philosophy and theology.

For me the teachings of the Catholic Church does not change.Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.(Heb.13:8).

Jesus is the only Saviour in the world and there is no salvation outside the Church (AG 7, LG 14, Vatican Council II).

So when Cushingites ask me where does the Church say that all non Catholics are going to Hell, I cite Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Then there is the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Catechisms.There is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).

So this is what the Church teaches today.I am not saying anything new.

What about the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)?

For Cushingites they are exceptions to the need for all to be members of the Catholic Church, with faith and baptism for salvation. For me they arenot exceptions.

Similarly for Cushingites, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are exceptions to outside the Church there is no salvation.Not for me.

Why not?

Since invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be visible examples of salvation outside the Church.

When the Cushingites infer that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions  to outside the Church there is no salvation, they are saying that there are known people in the present times saved outside the Church.

But there are no personally known people  saved as such and so BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be exceptions.

The Cushingites infer  that there are physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and baptism.This is irrational. There are no such people in the present times.If such people existed they would only be known to God.

So only with this irrationality( people who are dead and saved outside the Church are visible on earth to be exceptions to EENS) the Cushingites can say that the Church no more teaches  that outside the Church there is no salvation.Or, the Church taught this in the past but does not do so any more after Vatican Council II ( interpreted with Cushingism).

So this is why I say that I, as a Feeneyite( invisible people are just invisible) am only affirming what the Church teaches ( AG 7-Vatican Council II, EENS, Athanasius Creed etc) and this is what I believe as a Catholic.

So when it is said that Mohammad is in Hell and this is where all Muslims, and other non Catholics, are going  at the time of death, this is what the popes and the saints in the past have taught.This is what the Church teaches today in Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14),the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1257, 845,846),Dominus Iesus 20,  CDF Notification on Fr. Jaques Dupuis s.j ( n.7.According to Catholic doctrine the followers of other religions are oriented to the Church and are all called to become a part of her), John 3:5( the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation), Mark 16:16 ( those who do not believe and enter and remain in the Church will be condemned), Matt.7:13 ( the Church is the narrow gate, the Mystical Body of Jesus is the narrow gate and the road to Hell is wide and most people take it), John 6 ( the Eucharist is necessary for salvation) etc.

Since I am a Feeneyite ( invisible cases are just invisible) and not a Cushingite( invisible cases are visible) there are no objective exceptions to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on exclusive salvation.

Again, let me repeat : a Feeneyite is someone who believes hypothetical cases are just hypothetical, invisible people are visible.ACushingite is someone who believes invisible people are visible in the present times. So invisible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I are visible exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of EENS.-Lionel Andrades

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/so-i-am-ponting-out-to-what-catholic.html
________________________________

 OCTOBER 16, 2018

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II : not just a personal opinion

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.1

This is not just a personal opinion.

I affirm all Magisterial documents but interpret them Feeneyism while the bishops and priests in Rome for example, interpret them with Cushingism.

-Lionel Andrades

1.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/aisha-bibi-is-not-choosing-to-become.html

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/pope-paul-vi-who-overlooked-objective.html


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/this-is-teaching-of-catholic-church.html_________________________________________________

Cardinals, bishops and priests in Rome who interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism have not denied that they do so, all these years : Cardinal Joseph Coutts will also not deny it

So I am not criticizing any non Catholic's religion wth my personal opinion.I am only affirming the Catholic Faith in Rome where there still is freedom of expression,religion and worship. I am a Roman Catholic.

Cardinal Joseph Coutts, the Archbishop of Karachi, Pakistan could also say that he is a good Catholic  and affirms all Magisterial documents  and teachings of the Catholic Church. This would be true . But he interprets them with irrational Cushingism as a philosophy and theology.He will not deny this.

Similarly, cardinals, bishops and priests in Rome who interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism have not denied that they do so, all these years.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 15, 2018

Cardinal Joseph Coutts and the Pakistani bishops could proclaim the Faith honestly even if they could be martyred

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/cardinal-joseph-coutts-and-pakistan.html

 OCTOBER 15, 2018

Who can judge an Emperor Valentinian II today ?

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/who-can-judge-emperor-valentinian-ii.html


OCTOBER 12, 2018

How can St.Emerentiana be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2018? 'Elementary My Dear Watson. Elementary.'

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-can-stemerentiana-be-exception-to.html


________________________________________________________________

 AUGUST 10, 2018

The moment you say that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS you infer that they refer to known people, visible people saved outside the Catholic Church : invisible people cannot be exceptions (Grafics)

-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 10, 2018

Chris Ferrara, Mons.Clifford Joseph Fenton, Fr. John Hardon, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Michael Davis, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Attila Guimares, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others did not know about it

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/chris-ferrara-monsclifford-joseph.html