Today is the Feast of St.Peter and St. Paul and at Mass in Italian this evening the priest and the congregation recited the Profession of Faith.It was meaningless since the priest, the religious community and the lay people present, interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with a false premise while I do not. So our conclusions are different.
Their concept of catechesis is different from mine.
Their concept of mission is different from mine.
There is a parallel Church. There are those who are faithful to the past Magisterium like me and there is the rest of them, in a parallel Church, created with a false premise.The false premise is used to interpret Vatican Council II, for example, to bring out a hermeneutic of rupture with the past Magisterium on esclusive salvation. They call this magisterial.When the popes since Pius XII use a false premise to interpret EENS etc the liberals and traditionalists call it magisterial.
But it is not magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake. It is the mistake of the liberals and traditionalists, in a human mistake. Both groups use the same false premise to accomodate a parallel Church in 2020.It is the mistake of the popes not in a magisterial state.
If they did not use the false premise , then there would be no liberalism,at least. There would be no theology; no new theology to accomodate the liberals and the Masons. There would also not be the present-type of traditionalists who interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past and then blame the Council.Without the false premise Vatican Council II would be in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church. All would simply be Catholic.
So the traditionalists would no more be called schismatic for rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.The Council would be Feeneyite and traditional.
The traditionalists would be affirming Vatican Council and the Creeds and Catechism in harmony with exclusive salvation in the Church. This would leave the liberals holding on to an obsolete version of Vatican Council II and still being in schism with the popes over the centuries, on outside the Church there is no salvation.It would be a different Vatican Council II and it would be trouble for them.Now they have it good.
The traditionalists do not realize this. This does not 'sink in'.
So like the bishops of the USCCB Doctrinal Committee even Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Schneider use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II. So of course there has to be a rupture with Tradition.
So why doesn't Bishop Schneider avoid the false premise when he reads Vatican Council II ?
He does not do so for the same reason as the liberal bishops of the USCCB. He would be affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). He would be saying that Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the CDF(Holy Office) was wrong.He would be saying that the liberals and traditionalists( including Archbishop' Lefebvre) were wrong these 55-plus years.He would draw persecution.
This would be isolation from the Lefebvrists who support him and a break with main line Church which tolerates him as a bishop.It would also put him at odds with the Jewish Left.
This would be isolation from the Lefebvrists who support him and a break with main line Church which tolerates him as a bishop.It would also put him at odds with the Jewish Left.
So they all continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference to create a non traditional conclusion which would be a rupture with St. Peter and the Apostles teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.There is a rupture with the Church Fathers who did not interpret the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as being an exception to exclusive salvation in Jesus in the Catholic Church.
With the false premise they have brought apostasy in the Church. Since the Creeds,Catechisms and Vatican Council II have been changed. Other related doctrine have also been changed.
With the false premise they have brought apostasy in the Church. Since the Creeds,Catechisms and Vatican Council II have been changed. Other related doctrine have also been changed.
Our Lady at some of her apparitions predicted an apostasy in the Church.
Even those Catholics who promote the Fatima message do not want to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise since they want to protect their blog, website, teaching job or other worldly interest.
They all celebrate the feast day of St. Peter and St.Paul creating division in the Church and bringing in a new revelation which also happens to be politically correct with the Left. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 29, 2020
USCCB Doctrinal Committee wants SBC to interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being considered practical exceptions to EENS
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/usccb-doctrinal-committee-want-sbc-to.html
JUNE 29, 2020
Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Phil Lawler must stop talking in vague and general terms about Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition and instead they should specify how the false premise creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/archbishop-carlo-vigano-and-phil-lawler.html
JUNE 29, 2020
Catholic religious and laity need to formally challenge the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Doctrinal Committee on its bad decisions with reference to Vatican Council II.
JUNE 29, 2020
Wikipedia needs to correct their ideological report on Fr. Leonard Feeney.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/wikipedia-needs-to-correct-their.html
Canonical recognition for those who use the false premise : Brother Thomas Augustine MICM and St. Benedict Center , Still River approved
Posts
