Like his previous documents, Pope Francis has once again in Traditionis Custode, interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise.The violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit

 

Like his previous documents, Pope Francis has once again in Traditionis Custode, interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise ( invisible cases are visible in the present times).He creates a rupture with Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, with no exceptions) and also supports the New Theology in the Church, which is the foundation for his liberalism, and a parallel Church.This is not Magisterial. It is a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

If he interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise ( invisible cases are invisible in 2021.LG 16 is invisible always) then the Council would not be a rupture with Tradition, since there would be no known example of salvation outside the Catholic Church.So we would be back to the old theology ( outside the Church there is no salvation).The Church would be traditional in its ecclesiology.There would be no rupture with the past Magisterium.Since Vatican Council II would be rational, traditional and Magisterial.It would be politically incorrect with the Left.

Now the interpretation of the Council of Pope Francis, the liberals, Lefebvrists, Thucs and Feeneyites is heretical. It is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed.It is schismatic, contradicting the past popes with a new interpretation of the Nicene and Apostles Creed and the Catechisms.The contradiction emerges when they cite the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), which are interpreted with the same false premise and inference ( invisible cases of BOD and I.I are visible examples of salvation outside the Church)

Without the fake premise the Church would have its ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the past. It would be there today at Mass in all rites.

So Mass in Latin would not be targetted. With the rational premise there would not be ‘ a development of doctrine’ or the traditionalist-liberal division, which depends upon the New Theology.Theologically there can be no New Ecumenism if Vatican Council II does not mention any one in particular saved outside the Church.

Traditionis Custode is a political document and does not reflect  the teachings of the Catholic Church. Politics should not be brought into Catholic theology with a deceptive reasoning.A fake premise is unethical and now it is public.

The FSSP can oppose this error, for example, when it is supported by the offices of the French bishops and Church organisations.In the same way, the Rome Vicariate promotes the same secular  and public falsehood, which should be checked in public.

An appeal could be made to Catholic jurists and political leaders  to correct the common mistake in the Church today. It has entered the Church through the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO).

The LOHO  assumes invisible cases of the BOD and I.I were visible exceptions  to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and so concludes,heretically and schismatically, that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

The liberals placed the LOHO in the Denzinger with the objective error.Then someone at Vatican Council II referenced it in Lumen Gentium 16.

Pope Paul VI then interpreted the Council with the fake premise of LOHO.He avoided the rational alternative which would support traditional EENS.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith overlooked the error.They maintained the false narative.The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was not lifted for some 19 years.It was on right through Vatican Council II where Cardinal Cushing was active.

It was an objective mistake ( invisible people now in  Heaven were assumed to be visible exceptions on earth to EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc)

It was a factual mistake. Since it is a fact of life that the so-called exceptions to EENS are not there on earth for any of us humans.However with the false reasoning, if someone is saved in Heaven  with the BOD or I.I for example, the person is allegedly also physically seen on earth ( to be exceptions to EENS) .

It would mean he or she is in two places  at the same time violating the Principle of Non Contradiction of Aristotle.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is the objective mistake of Pope Francis’ new document.

The Latin Mass is not responsible for the return to the 

old ecclesiology.The FSSP for example, correctly rejects Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and goes back to traditional sources. They could also interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, accept it and return to Tradition and ask the Vatican to do the same. -Lionel Andrades