Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise and say that the Council is valid.
Rahner, Ratzinger and Congar also interpreted the Council with a false premise to create an artificial rupture with Tradition,and held that the Council was valid.They made de fide teachings of the Church obsolete.
I interpret the Council with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and believe that the Council is valid-even though the Council Fathers made an objective mistake, with the fake premise.This interpretation, one of two, is not Magisterial.
But even with the original mistake of the Council Fathers,the Council can be re-interpreted rationally and the conclusion is Magisterial.There is no rupture with Tradition. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyite Syllabus of Errors and Feeneyite Athanasius Creed.The interpretation of the Church documents is Cushingite for most people, since they use the false premise.
So for those who use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, like Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery or the sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Bishop Mark Pivarunas, the Council cannot be dogmatic, as it is dogmatic for me.
When Archbishop Carlo Vigano says Vatican Council II should be rejected , this is understandable, since the heretical, schismatic and non traditional conclusion must be rejected.It is not Magisterial.But he and the Lefebvrists avoid interpreting the Council without the fake premise.This would make them extremists for the Left. -Lionel Andrades
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/in-new-interview-abp-vigano-discusses-failure-of-vatican-ii-novus-ordo-mass?utm_source=editor_picks&utm_campaign=standard
JUNE 9, 2021
All the books on Vatican Council II in general written by pro-SSPX authors are written with a false premise and need to be phased out
All the books on Vatican Council II written by pro- SSPX authors, are written with a false premise. They need to be phased out.The books could have been written without the false premise and inference and then the conclusion would have been traditional.
JUNE 15, 2021
Paulo Pasqualucci has not been informed about the interpretation of Vatican Council II with a rational premise
Repost
APRIL 15, 2018
Six of Pasqualucci's 'distinct points of rupture with the Tradition of the Church in the texts of the Vatican II documents' are not a rupture
Today, we present an analysis by Paolo Pasqualucci, a Catholic philosopher and retired professor of philosophy of the law at the University of Perugia, Italy. Pasqualucci identifies, in this adaptation of the introduction to his book Unam Sanctam – A Study on Doctrinal Deviations in the Catholic Church of the 21st Century, 26 distinct points of rupture with the Tradition of the Church in the texts of the Vatican II documents themselves.-
“Points of Rupture” of the Second Vatican Council with the Tradition of the Church – A Synopsis (Blog 1Peter5)
https://onepeterfive.com/the-points-of-rupture-of-the-second-vatican-council-with-the-tradition-of-the-church-a-synopsis/APRIL 15, 2018
APRIL 14, 2018
This imporant point was overlooked by Paolo Pasqualucci, Romano Amerio and Msgr. Brunero Gherardinihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/this-imporant-point-was-overlooked.html
APRIL 14, 2018
Once this is understood we can always interpret Vatican Council II as affirming an ecumenism of return only
JUNE 18, 2014
Cristina Siccardi ,Paolo Pasqualucci use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
“Points of Rupture” of the Second Vatican Council with the Tradition of the Church – A Synopsis
https://onepeterfive.com/the-points-of-rupture-of-the-second-vatican-council-with-the-tradition-of-the-church-a-synopsis/_________________________
JUNE 11, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 15, 2021
This is priceless information : the Congregatio for the Doctrine of the Faith will not tell you about it
You can interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and your conclusion will be different.
You can interpret the Athanasius Creed with or without the false premise and it will be the difference between heresy and orthodoxy.
Nicene Creed…-the same.
Apostles Creed…-the same.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Catechism of the Catholic Church…-the same.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) placed in the Denzinger and referenced at Vatican Council II interprets BOD and I.I with the false premise and so its conclusion is a rupture with the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.This is priceless information.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will not tell you about it.
The LOHO uses a false premise to create a New Theology and liberals and conservatives unknowingly go along with it.-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 10, 2021
Cardinals Kasper and Koch interpret Unitatis Redintigratio, Vatican Council II, with a false premise in support of the New Ecumenism : why should the whole Church follow them ?
Cardinals Kasper and Koch interpret Unitatis Redintigratio in the Second Vatican Council as a support for the New Ecumenism. Why should the whole Church follow them?
On the blog Rorate Caeili, Don Pietro Leone wrote on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). He quotes Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, to contradict the EENS dogma and support a New Ecumenism. For him Unitatis Redintigratio (UR) has exceptions for EENS. It contradicts an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church. There is therefore a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition,for him.
For me, UR refers only to hypothetical and speculative cases.They exist only in our mind. It would be irrational to consider them objective and practical examples, of being saved outside the Church. So for me they are not exceptions to EENS.
Unitatis Redintigratio, the Decree on Ecumenism,is not a break with Tradition. I interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Why should Catholics interpret Unitatis Redintigratio with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of continuity, with Tradition?
Why cannot citations from Unitatis Redintigratio simply refer to hypothetical cases and therefore do not contradict EENS in 2021? I can choose to consider Unitatis Redintigratio as not being in conflict with the traditional, strict interpretation of EENS. Other Catholics can do the same.
Similarly Louie Verrecchio on his blog, chooses to interpret UR as a break with the past ecumenism. I pointed this out to him. It's irrational, but he keeps doing the same thing. This is modernism. He uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II etc and so the conclusion is non traditional.
UR 3 for example can only be hypothetical. There is no other choice. If someone is saved in another religion, without the Catholic faith and water- baptism, he would be known only to God.
Cardinals Kasper and Koch also interpret Unitatis Redintigratio as a support for the New Ecumenism. Why should the whole Church follow them? They are irrational. It is dishonest to cite theoretical cases, referred to in UR, as practical exceptions to the EENS, in 1965-2021. There is really no new theology supporting the New Ecumenism or the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger or 'the development of doctrine', as Pope Benedict and Francis call it.
Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise cannot be a new revelation. It cannot also be a new ecumenism. It's simple dishonesty.-Lionel Andrades
__________________________
JUNE 12, 2021
Kwasniewski needs to write another book to be published by Amazon...so he is being prudent and dishonest
Peter Kwasniewki did not tell the truth to the seminarian who wants to leave the seminary because of the in coherence he sees all around him.He did not tell the seminarian that Vatican Council II is dogmatic on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and there is a continuity with the past teachings of the Catholic Church.Instead he told the seminarian that the traditional teachings of the Church ended on the eve of Vatican Council II.
Kwasniewski needs to write another book to be published by Amazon...so he is being prudent and dishonest. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 8, 2021
Peter Kwasniewski misguided the seminarian on Vatican Council II
Peter Kwasniewski on the blog 1Peter5 tells a seminarian who wants to be coherent that the continuity of the Church's teachings ended on the eve of Vatican Council II.Kwasniewski did not want to be accused of being a Feeneyite and be further de-platformed. So he misguided the seminarian. - Lionel Andrades
https://onepeterfive.com/a-reply-to-the-discouraged-seminarian-there-are-6000-reasons-to-remain-catholic/
MAY 31, 2021
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II the great Catholic Tradition does not stop on the eve of Vatican Council II
Peter Kwasniewski writes on the blog 1Peter5
Down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council II ? Why did Peter Kwasniewski have to stop here.
Why? Since he is using the narrative of the progressivists and the Lefebvrists.
Kwasniewski, as he puts it in the article, 'allows the enemy to dictate the terms of the entire debate'. He interprets the Council like the Modernists.
No comments:
Post a Comment