THE SSPX IS NOT
PROCLAIMING THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING IN ALL POLITICS IN THE USA,
ITALY ETC AND NEITHER INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE
INSTEAD OF THE IRRATIONAL PREMISE : DON PIETRO LEONE AND FR. DAVIDE PAGLIARANI REMAIN POLITCALLY CORRECT WITH THE LEFT AND TRADITIONIS CUSTODE.
The web blog Rorate Caeili knows that Vatican
Council II can be interpreted without the false premise even though this was
the mistake of the Council Fathers in 1965. It was also the error in reasoning,
of Pope Pius XII and the cardinals in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office
was issued.
Many years back a reader of Rorate Caeili
described the blog as ‘spineless’ in an e-mail to me.Since the owner of the
web-blog had posted some comments of mine showing how the International
Theological Comission, had made an error in two documents, when it used the
false premise to interpet the LOHO and Vatican Council II. The rabbi at the
Angelicum had phoned up Rorate Caeili, the editor announced it on the blog. He
was concerned and immediately removed the comments.
It must be noted that at the Angelicum University
they interpret Unitatis Redintigratio 3 as referring to known Christians in the
present times, saved outside the Church. So UR is projected as a practical
exception to the dogma EENS and the past ecumenism of return.
It is not said that Pope Paul VI could have
interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise, if he wanted to, and
the Council would not be rupture with Tradition.
The old propaganda of Don Pietro Leone is
gurgitated on Rorate Caeili. Leone has spent most of of his life interpreting
Vatican Council II with the error and now cannot change to a rational option,
which could be costly for him and Rorate Caeli.
So they will put the blame on Vatican Council II
while not choosing to affirm the Faith on the exclusivist
ecclesiology of the Church and the salvation-dogma.
There is not a single report on Rorate Caeili
which states that there are two interpretations of the Council and that
Traditionis Custode was issued with the irrational interpretation of the
Council, like that of Don Pietro Leone.It was the same with the Abu Dhabi statement and
Amoris Laeitia.Pope Francis cited Vatican Council II. Cardinal Hummes of Brazil, cited Vatican Council II for the innovation at
the Amazon Synod and criticized the SSPX for not accepting the Council ( interpreted
with the false premise to produce a false rupture with Catholic Tradition).
The Latin Mass ( not Traditional Latin Mass) will
be permitted in Britain since the Latin Mass Societies like the liberals, 1) will
interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone ( by confusing what is
invisible as being visible and then projecting practical exceptions to
Tradition) and 2) they will not interpret the Council like Lionel Andrades( who affirms the orthodox passages in the
Council-text and does not project passages which refer to hypothetical cases as
being practical exceptions to Tradition).
This was the political approach of Fr. Davide
Pagliarani in his recent statement on Traditionis Custode. He prudently did not
say that the SSPX affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political
legislation and politics in Italy, USA etc. He also did not say that they
support Vatican Council II with the rational premise, and so the Council would
not be a rupture with the traditional proclamation of the Social Reign and the
exclusivista interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He could not say it. Since Archbishop Lefebvre
made a mistake when he used the false premise to interpret the Councils and so
also the Creeds and Catechisms. The Profession of Faith of Fr. Pagliarani and
the cardinals and bishops at the Novus Ordo Mass, would be diferent from
mine.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment