If they
interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise they would have to
affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with there being no exceptions in
VC2), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope
Pius IX ( with no exceptions in VC 2) and the Athanasius Creed( with no
exceptions mentioned in VC 2 to all needing Catholic faith for salvation). The
ADL, SPLC and Vatican would object.So they are keeping things under wraps on
Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 16, 2021
All the members of this panel confused the cause with the effect in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and are still doing the same
AUGUST 15, 2021
The cause for the liberalism in the Church after Vatican Council II is unknown and the result of the Council is mistaken as the cause of 'the revolution', 'the reforms' in the Church : the result is confused as the cause
AUGUST 15, 2021
The cause for the liberalism in the Church after Vatican Council II is unknown and the result of the Council is mistaken as the cause of 'the revolution', 'the reforms' in the Church : the result is confused as the cause
The rejection of traditional exclusive salvation , the new ecumenism, ‘the spirit of Vatican Council II’, the general liberalism is not caused by Vatican Council II(VC2) per se, in itself.The result of VC2 has a hidden cause. It is subtle.Most people are unaware of the real cause of the liberalism. They confuse ‘the result’ as being the cause.Once the precise cause of the liberalism is known, it makes no difference, knowing that Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Cushing and Murray were present at the Counci. They all are incidental.Since once the cause of the liberalism is known, the liberalism can be eliminated and so the presence of the Masons at the Council, does not prevent a return to Tradition today, with the same Vatican Council II of 1965.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
This point of cause and effect is very important. Since most Catholics confuse the effect, the ‘liberal reforms of VC 2’ with the presence of liberal ecclesiastics and non Christians at the venue of the Council as being the cause. Or they confuse the change in liturgy, the new Mass, as the cause of the liberalism. They are not aware of the precise cause of the break with Tradition.It is hidden. So they put the responsibility, for the change in the Church, on many things, except for the precise cause.
Those who have been reading this blog Eucharist and Mission ( euchararistandmission ) will know what is the precise cause and how in a flash we can go back to Tradition in 2021.
But this was not known in 1965. It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. If Fr. Leonard Feeney knew about it he did not mention it in public. It was not known clearly to Archbishop Pierre Thuc.
THE NEW THEOLOGY WAS BASED UPON AN EMPIRICAL ERROR
Let me name it.The precise cause for 'the revolution', 'the reforms of VC2', 'the paradigm shift' in the Catholic Church, 'the New Theology', was an empirical error, an error in observation, a philosophical error, that go passed every one.It was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO).
Now we come to the 'cause'. The cause, in a surprise for some, would not be the German theologians or the German ecclesiastics.The cause was a simple and subtle error, which brought in a New Theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation in the present times.This resulted in new doctrines, a dogma being discarded. The result was there were new disciplines in the Church, a new understanding of Church ( ecclesiology). With the New Theology it was possible to have the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law etc.
It seems as if Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, knew what was the precise cause and he would not make it public. He would use it to make changes in the Church. He would sustain the progressivism and liberalism, now seen in the German Synodal Path.He did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre about 'the cause', but allowed him to be excommunicated. If Pope Pius XII knew of 'the cause' i.e invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he did not announce it. He allowed Fr. Leonard Feeney to be excommunicated.He let the Church believe that invisible cases are visible.
So the irrationality, 'the cause' came into the Church when Joseph Ratzinger was a young man during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.Ratzinger was not responsible for it.He went along with 'the dark secret ', beleiving it was in the interest of peace and security and the welfare of the Church.
Our Lady would tell Fr. Stefano Gobbi, in her locutions to him, that Satan would enter the Church at the highest levels and confuse ecclesiastics.
Pope Pius XII knew about the dark secret but he kept quiet with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney, the archives indicate. This was mentioned by Brother Andre Marie MICM when interviewed by Timothy Flanders, the new editor at 1Peter5.
The 'cause' was the confusing of hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being objective examples of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions to the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So the LOHO wrongly concluded that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.Why? Since there were, allegedly, personally known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water, and instead with BOD, BOB and I.I.
So now it is asked , how can invisible people be practical exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return, or the traditional ecclesiocentrism of Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center ?
Fr.Leonard Feeney could see through the error. He commented on the ecclesiastics in Boston and Rome, not knowing theology.
They probably knew theology but for political reasons were projecting invisible cases as being practical exceptions to traditional EENS. This was after World War II and the creation of the new state of Israel.
Fr. Leonard Feeney had the Boston establishment and hierarchy in Rome against him.Their agenda seemed, 'get rid of the dogma EENS in the Catholic Church. Teach error.'Archbishop Lefebvre was up against the same thing in 1965.The St. Benedict Center(SBC) and the SBC professors dismissed by Jesuit Boston College, knew what was happening, but to whom could they go to ? Boston and Rome wanted to change doctrine and then Pope Paul VI made it official at Vatican Council II.
LUMEN GENTIUM 16 IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE
In all the confusion of those times no one pointed out that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, like BOD and I.I in 1949 were always invisible cases.
If LG 8 etc, like BOD and I.I are seen as invisible cases the Church could return to it's past exclusivist ecclesiology. There would no more be the New Theology and New Liberalism.
THEY COULD SEE THE RESULT BUT NOT THE CAUSE.
Many religious left the Church after 1965.They could see 'the result'.They did not know about the cause. May be some in Boston knew what was the cause.The cause was not the elimination of the dogma EENS-that was the result. The cause was the official use of the false premise.It was confusing hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being practical exceptions to EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc.
The cause of the rupture with Tradition was not known to the SBC either.They were interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.This can be seen today on the Catholicism.org reports on Vatican Council II.The SBC never said that Vatican Council II was Feeneyite. Instead, like the SSPX, the Council was always Cushingite for them.They interpreted the Council with the false premise.It was the popes who also used the false premise and so were irrational, heretical and schismatic.
The SBC communities held on to the truth about EENS for all of us and we have to admire them for this.
The 'cause'- was the false premise.
Now Pope Francis can re-read Vatican Council II differently. He has a choice. We all have a choice. We don't have to read the Council like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Our premise is invisible cases are always invisible on earth.This is rational.So our conclusion is invisible cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II, are not visible exceptions to EENS).Our conclusion is now rational and traditional.
For us, the ecclesiology of the Church today, can be the same as in 1948 and earlier.Vatican Council II (rational) is an ally, with the hermeneutic of continuity with past.It means when Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II, EENS and other Magisterial documents with the rational premise they are Magisterial. When they use the false premise they are no more magisterial.-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 14, 2021
Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Catholics can interpret the Council with a rational premise and undo the error of half a century.
AUGUST 14, 2021
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he chooses the New Theology
AUGUST 14, 2021
All the reports on Traditionis Custode are not mentioning that the popes have interpreted Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with a fake premise and this is the officially approved interpretation for all priests who wish to offer Holy Mass in any rite
AUGUST 14, 2021
The popes from Paul VI to Francis have used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . The popes from Pius XII to Francis have used a false premise to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus
AUGUST 14, 2021
We are Catholics and not leftist politicians
AUGUST 14, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic. We are no more limited by half a century of error.We have found the missing link. We now know how to consistently, systematically and regularly create the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition when reading VC2
AUGUST 13, 2021
Today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise it cannot be Magisterial. This is an important point that Eric Sammons does not discuss
AUGUST 12, 2021
The FSSP priests must stay in France but announce that they accept Vatican Council II but interpret it rationally.So the Council supports traditional dogma and doctrine. If Pope Francis and the bishops say that the Council must be interpreted irrationally to create a rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) this is unethical and not Catholic.Even by secular standards this is dishonest.
AUGUST 16, 2021
Both of them in this video have missed the point. The New Ecumenism comes from a precise doctrinal and theological change. A subtle false premise. The New Evangelisation comes from the same New Theology.We cannot re-claim Traditional Mission with the use of the false premise.
Both of them in this video have missed the point. The New Ecumenism comes from a precise doctrinal and theological change. A subtle false premise. The New Evangelisation comes from the same New Theology.We cannot re-claim Traditional Mission with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades
_______________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment