Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent for Life Site News does not connect the expulsion of the FSSP priests from Dijon, France with the Fischer More College, Texas and the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire.There the bishops prohibited the Latin Mass and invited the people to go to other churches for the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests.
The real issue is not the Latin Mass or Vatican Council II but interpreting Church documents, including Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with or without the common false premise.
At the Fischer More College Fr. Nicholas Gruner was not allowed to offer Mass.The college faculty was expected to accept Vatican Council II with the false premise.This would create a rupture with Tradition.
The St.Benedict Center,NH was not allowed to have the Latin Mass at their chapel. Those who attended Mass with SBC had to go for the Latin Mass at a church nearby. The Mass would be offered by the FSSP who accept Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and as a rupture with EENS according to the SBC.
So the Latin Mass was not the issue. It was the ecclesiology which was of concern for the Left.
It is always the Latin Mass without the ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM), of the missionaries in the 16th century.
The Novus Ordo and FSSP priests interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, like the 300 families in Dijon.The bishop considers this Magisterial. It is the interpretation of the popes since Paul VI.He interpreted Vatican Council II with the New Theology.This is acceptable for the Left.
There cannot be a New Theology created with a false premise, it cannot be Magisterial.This is the message the 300 families must get across in the diocese and the rest of France.Then there will be the old theology at the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass in France.-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 24, 2021
The Latin laity at Dijon, France can get back the old ecclesioloy of the TLM : They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II etc.,without the false premise. They are back to Tradition !
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
No comments:
Post a Comment