Friday, August 21, 2020

Abp. Viganò: Christ the King has been ‘dethroned’ not only ‘from society but also from the Church’ : When EENS with no exceptions is rejected then the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation is also rejected.

eucharistandmission: With Feeneyite Vatican Council II the ...

Featured Image

Extract from Abp. Viganò: Christ the King has been ‘dethroned’ not only ‘from society but also from the Church’


THE KINGSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST

As the Sacred Scriptures frequently attest, God has conferred this Sovereignty on his Only-Begotten Son.

Saint Paul affirms, in a general way, that God made his Son “heir of all things” (Heb 1:2). Saint John, for his part, confirms the thought of the Apostle of the Gentiles in many passages of his Gospel: for example, when he recalls that “the Father does not judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to His Son” (Jn 5:22). The prerogative of administering justice belongs, in fact, to the king, and whoever possesses it does so because he is invested with sovereign power.

This Universal Kingship that the Son has inherited from his Father should not be understood only as the eternal inheritance through which, in his Divine Nature, He has received all of the attributes that make him equal and consubstantial to the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity, in the unity of the Divine Essence.

This Kingship is also attributed in a special way to Jesus Christ inasmuch as he is truly man, the Mediator between heaven and earth. In fact, the mission of the Word Incarnate is precisely the establishment on earth of the Kingdom of God. We observe that the expressions of Sacred Scripture relative to the Kingship of Jesus Christ refer, without a shadow of a doubt, to his condition as man.

He is presented to the world as the Son of King David, for whom he comes to inherit the Throne of his Father, extended to the ends of the earth and made eternal, without a count of years. Thus it was that the Archangel Gabriel announced the dignity of the Son of Mary: “You shall bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of David, his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom shall have no end” (Lk 1:31-33). And, furthermore, the Magi who came from the East to adore him seek him as a King: “Where is the newborn King of the Jews?” they ask Herod, on their arrival in Jerusalem (Mt 2:2). The mission that the Eternal Father entrusts to the Son in the mystery of the Incarnation is to establish a Kingdom on earth, the Kingdom of Heaven. Through the establishment of this Kingdom, the ineffable Charity with which God has loved men from all eternity, mercifully drawing them to Himself, becomes concrete: “Dilexi te, ideo attraxite, miserans”. “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee.” (Jer 31:3)

Jesus consecrates his public life to the proclamation and establishment of his Kingdom, at times referred to as the Kingdom of God and at others as the Kingdom of Heaven. Following the Eastern practice, Our Lord makes use of fascinating parables in order to inculcate the idea and the nature of this Kingdom that he has come to establish. His miracles aim to convince the people that his Kingdom has already come; it is found in the midst of the people. “Si in digito Dei eiicio daemonia, profecto pérvenit in vos regnum Dei” – “If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God is upon you” (Lk 11:20). 

The constitution of his Kingdom so absorbed his mission that the apostasy of his enemies took advantage of this idea to justify the accusation raised against him before Pilate’s tribunal: “Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris” – “If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar.” They cried out to Pontius Pilate: “Everyone who makes himself king opposes Caesar” (Jn 19:12). Validating the opinion of his enemies, Jesus Christ confirms to the Roman governor that He is truly a King: “You say: I am a king” (Jn 18:37).

Between Christ the King and “We Have No King But Caesar ...

A KING IN A TRUE SENSE

It is not possible to question the regal character of the work of Jesus Christ. He is King.

Our faith, however, requires that we understand well the scope and meaning of the Royalty of the Divine Redeemer. Pius XI immediately excludes the metaphorical sense by which we call “king” and “kingly” whatever is excellent in a human way of being or acting. No: Jesus Christ is not king in this metaphorical sense. He is King in the proper sense of the word. In Sacred Scripture, Jesus appears exercising royal prerogatives of sovereign government, dictating laws and ordering punishments against transgressors. In the famous Sermon on the Mount, we may say that the Savior promulgated the Law of his Kingdom. As a true Sovereign, He requires obedience to His laws under pain of nothing less than eternal condemnation. And also in the scene of the Judgment, which announces the end of the world, when the Son of God will come to administer His judgment to the living and the dead: “The Son of Man will come in his glory [...] and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats [...]. Then the King will say to those on his right: “Come, you who are blessed by my Father [...]. Then He will say to those on his left: “Depart from me, you accursed, into the everlasting fire [...]. And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Mt 25:31 ff.). A sentence that is both sweet and terrible. Sweet for the good, because of the unparalleled excellence of the prize that awaits them; terrible and frightening for the wicked, because of the terrifying judgment to which they are condemned for eternity.

A consideration of this sort is sufficient in order to realize how it is of the highest importance for people to identify rightly where the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is here on earth, because belonging or not belonging to it decides our eternal destiny. We have said “here on earth” since man merits the reward or punishment for the afterlife in this world. On earth, therefore, men ought to enter and become part of this ineffable Kingdom of God, which is both temporal and eternal, because it is formed in this world and flowers forth fully in heaven...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/ap-vigano-christ-the-king-has-been-dethroned-not-only-from-society-but-also-from-the-church

Social Reign Items

Note: When extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with no exceptions is rejected then the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation is also rejected.

Since extra ecclesiam nulla salus with exceptions means that not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.

When every one does not need to enter the Church for salvation then why have traditional mission or proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King ?

Similarly if Vatican Council II has exceptions to EENS(LG 16 etc) then why proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King since non Catholics outside the Church would be going to Heaven.

So it is important that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano interpret EENS with the baptism of desire, baptims of blood and invincible ignorance not being exceptions. It is also important that he interprets Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc not being exceptions to EENS( without exceptions). -Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 26, 2017



The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it.


'No Catholic can vote for Joe Biden': Pro-life priests explain

Michael Sean Winters chooses not to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf does not say anything. Why? Since MSW would ask Fr. Z,"Have you interpreted Vatican Council II without the irrational premise ?" He would have to say No. Otherwise it would mean he affirms the strict interpretation of EENS.

 Image result for Photos Fr. John Zuhlsdorf  Image result for Photos Michael Sean winters

Michael Sean Winters chooses not to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf does not say anything. Why? Since MSW would ask Fr. Z,"Have you interpreted Vatican Council II without the irrational premise ?" He would have to say No. Otherwise it would mean he affirms the strict interpretation of EENS

Fr.Z says imagine the first 15 seconds in Hell...

hell-fire-1 | Mundabor's Blog

The rejection of the dogma EENS is first class heresy it is a mortal sin.

Interpreting the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc with a false premise to change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Athanasius Creed  is first class heresy.

To knowingly interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a rupture with the popes of the past is schism....-Lionel Andrades

Mladifest Međugorje choir and orchestra - ''Hosanna''

Archbishop Carlo Vigano needed to correct Bishop Schneider by announcing that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed. Presently LG 16 is an exception to Tradition for Bishop Schneider and he wants LG 16 removed.

 Archbishop Carlo Vigano needed to correct Bishop Schneider by announcing that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed.

Presently LG 16 is an exception to Tradition for Bishop Schneider and he wants LG 16 removed.-Lionel Andrades

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are Christocentric without being ecclesiocentric. Their books , encyclicals etc are written with a false premise. This cannot be magisterial.

 Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are Christocentric without being ecclesiocentric. Their books , encyclicals etc are written with a false premise. This cannot be magisterial.

Since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, exceptions are created for traditional EENS. So EENS is obsolete. So they can no more affirm the eccclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Jesuits in the 16th century. 

If they interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise there would be no rupture with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors, EENS etc.)The Church would then once again be ecclesiocentric. -Lionel Andrades

Cardinal Braz de Avez can no longer expect the Franciscans of the Immaculate and other religious communities to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise for canonical recognition.

 Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz of Italy - Papal contenders - Pictures ...

Cardinal Braz de Avez  can no longer expect the Franciscans of the Immaculate and other religious communities  to interpret Vatican  Council II with a false premise for canonical recognition.

Similarly the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for Divine Worship, Vatican, cannot expect the Angelicum University and the Dominicans, to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. They continue with this deception. It's illegal.-Lionel Andrades



AUGUST 20, 2020


Image result for Father Rosario Sammarco F.I the Superior a the seminary Photos

No denial from Cardinal Braz de Avez and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Rome.They agree with me



Lefebvrist traditionalists would be divided if they interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise

The Remnant Newspaper - A Profile in Fake News: WCCO TV Links The ...

 If the Lefebvrist traditionalists interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise and so would have to affirm the strict interpretation  of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), this would divide them.Many would prefer to their careers,life style and reputation instead of proclaiming the Faith with possible persecution.

Now when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise they can deny the strict interpretation of EENS and like the liberals place the blame on Vatican Council II.

If they made the distinction between Vatican Council II with the premise or without it, they would be exposed.

Michael Matt at the Remnant has another 'one of those' interviews of Vigano in which he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise,like the Left and so is not opposed.

What if Vigano and Matt re-interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise? The Council would emerge in harmony with EENS and the rest of Tradition.They would be opposed by the Left. So for now they have protected their worldly interests.-Lionel Andrades