Rorate Caeili and Don Pietro Leone choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then they reject the non traditional conclusion,even after being informed.

 Rorate Caeili and Don Pietro Leone choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then they reject the non traditional conclusion,even after being informed.They do not choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc rationally and then affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara, Taylor Marshall and Peter Kwasniewski. -Lionel Andrades

JUNE 1, 2021

Don Pietro Leone's reports on Vatican Council II posted by Rorate Caeili please the Left

It is as if the weblog Rorate Caeli promotes Don Pietro Leone's reports on Vatican Council II because they are a rupture with Tradition(EENS) to show the liberals and the Left that he is one of them. If Vatican Council II was interpreted without the fake premise and in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, they would object.Now they appreciate the posts on Rorate Caeili showing, as the liberal popes believed,that the Council is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Today so many Catholics still wrongly believe that the Council is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

For the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center, Stll River, MA, USA, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.So they have negated Feeneyite EENS; EENS with no known exceptions, and so have been granted canonical recognition by Bishop Robert McMmanus in the diocese of Worcester, USA.They interpret the Council with the fake premise, like all the religious communities in the diocese. So the common liberalism in the diocese of Worcester comes with the fake premise.It does not depend upon the liturgy.-Lionel Andrades

MAY 30, 2021

Rorate Caeili/Don Pietro Leone are actually promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc with the false premise instead of without it. Of course the conclusion has to be non traditional and they know it

 Rorate Caeili/Don Pietro Leone are actually promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc with the false premise instead of without it. Of course the conclusion has to be non traditional and they know it. -Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/rorate-caeilidon-pietro-leone-are.html

__________________________________

MAY 28, 2021

Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?

 

THE COUNCIL AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD - PART X - by Don Pietro Leone : THE CHURCH AND THE NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-part-x.html

Don Pietro Leone writing on Vatican Council II and other religions on the web blog Rorate Caeili cites Unitatis Redintigratio,the Decree on Ecumenism, as if they are non hypothetical and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 1965-2021.This is an error in reasoning. His premise is false. So his conclusion has to be non traditional.

A.     Ecumenism in Theory

 

 

Here we consider the ecclesiological status that the Council accords to non-Catholic Christians.

 

     i) ‘…many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Catholic Church’s] visible confines.’ (Lumen Gentium 8);

 

    ii) ‘all that have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ.’(Unitatis Redintegratio 3);

 

    iii) ‘… very many… elements… which go to build up and give life to the church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity; with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.’ (ibid);

 

    iv) ‘… the separated churches and  communities as such… have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery if salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation…’ (UR 3);

 

    v) [The non-Catholics are]‘brothers and sisters’ … in… ‘imperfect communion with the Catholic Church’… ‘separated brothers and sisters’ (UR 3); 

 

    vi) Amongst the non-Catholic Christians there is ‘a true union in the Holy Spirit’… ‘and He has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood’ (LG 15).

For me the theoretical and speculative lines above (in green) from Unitatis Redintigratio 3 or Lumen Gentium 8 and 15 which he has quoted was a weak attempt by some of the Council Fathers, to eliminate the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

Why does Leone still have to interpret Vatican Council II with the confusion of the liberals and Lefebvrists ?

So what if Yves Congar and the others were present at Vatican Council II ? If UR 3 and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases in our reality, then they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

But for Leone they are exceptions.Since he has confused UR 3, LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Real people saved without faith and baptism and who are known to us.This is irrational. There are no such known people. If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.Yet for Leone Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.

Why don’t the Lefebvrists, like Leone, affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and not the liberal version, which projects UR 3,LG 8 as being practical exceptions to Tradition in general and exclusive salvation in particular ?.

There are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church n 1965-2021 and so there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any mentioned in Vatican Council II, unless of course a false premise continues to be employed.

Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?

Rorate Caeili and Don Leone are really promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They please the Masons who want the Council to be interpreted as a rupture with Catholic Tradition.It is as if Rorate Caeili has to interpet UR 3 as a rupture with an ecumenism of return or the retired Jewish Left profesor at the Angelicum, Rome, will object once again.

The big names at Vatican Council II, who thought they could get rid of the dogma EENS, by employing the error in the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949, which was overlooked by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII,did not know that there was a built in error.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to objective cases in our time and space.So they never ever were exceptions to EENS or the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-use-false-premise.html

_________________________________________