Pope Benedict still does not admit that he wanted the SSPX to accept false doctrine in exchange for canonical recognition

 

https://www.churchmilitant.com/

Pope Benedict still does not admit that he wanted the SSPX to accept false doctrine in exchange for canonical recognition. 

Pope Benedict still does not admit that he interpreted the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance (I.I)  and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with a false premise and he wanted the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)to do the same. He wanted them to continue to use the same false premise  to interpret Vatican Council II and accept the non traditional conclusion. He wanted a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition in exchange for canonical recognition.The problem with the SSPX he said was 'doctrinal'.

When Pope Benedict interpreted the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with a false premise and accepted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office  he was rejecting traditional EENS, changing the meaning of the Nicene Creed, rejecting the Athanasius Creed, rejecting the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc. This is first class heresy and merits automatic excommunication. How can he offer Holy Mass.? - Lionel Andrades

  

 

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html