Sunday, October 31, 2021
Don Pierto Leone continues to interpret Vatican Council II like the liberals.The Social Reign of Christ the King could not be proclaimed during the recent elections for Mayor in Rome
On the Eve of The Feast of Christ the King, 2021 - Part XVII - The Council and the Eclipse of God – Part 3 of Chapter 4 on Religious Liberty: Christ the King (a)
In this installment, divided into two parts because of its rich and lengthy content, Don Pietro analyzes the Council’s underhanded suppression of the Kingship of Christ and the Feast of Christ the King, established by Pope Pius XI in 1925 and promulgated in his memorable and most beautiful encyclical Quas Primas.
Lionel: But neither is Don Pietro Leone and Rorate Caeili affirming the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus upon which was based the traditional proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics.
The Rome Mayoral Elections were held with the ecclesiastics, liberals and the traditionalists interpretating Vatican Council II and EENS with the False Premise. So it is asked why have Traditional Mission when Vatican Council II ( interpreted by Rorate Caeili etc ) says outside the Church there are known cases of salvation in the present times. So they project LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc as exceptions to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church- and consider them traditionalists.
__________
First, Don Pietro examines the silence of the Council’s documents on this Feast and second, its obfuscation through the changes made in the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours as regards scripture readings, prayers and hymns and in the process, cancelling the many references to Our Lord’s Kingship.
Lionel: Don Pietro has also been silent in proclaiming the Faith. He does not proclaim the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX as having no exceptions. This was also the mistake of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He re-interprets the Catechism of Pope Pius X with the same irrationality he used to interpret Vatican Council II. So this keeps him politically correct with the Left . There is no obligatiion to affirm Catholic doctrines and the old theology with Vatican Council II.
____________
This was all accomplished through duplicity and dishonesty and has led to the uncrowning of Christ the King and His Social Kingship. To quote Pope Pius XI 'At the last judgment, Christ will accuse those who have expelled Him from public life and will have the most terrible vengeance from such an outrage.' Part (b) to this installment will be posted tomorrow. F.R.
Christ the King of Sorrows
by William Shakespeare Burton
(United Kingdom, 1830-1916)
(The Monteverdi Choir, The English Baroque Soloists, Directed by John Eliot Gardiner)
1. Christ the King
Exaltabo te, Deus meus rex: et benedicam nomini tuo in saeculum at in saeculum saeculi. Per singulas dies benedicam tibi: et laudabo nomen tuum in saeculum, et in saeculum saeculi… [1]
We noted at the beginning of this book that the Council opposes the Faith either verbally or tacitly, that is by passing it over in silence. It opposes the doctrine concerning the Social Reign of Christ in the latter sense. We shall consider this silence first in reference to the document texts, then in the liturgy that these texts were to inspire.
Lionel: Don Pietro Leone oppose the Faith by tacitly intepreting Vatican Council II irrationally as did the liberals over some 50 plus years.
______________________
Silence in the texts
The granting of Religious Liberty to all men, and consequently the right to propagate error, both moral and religious, amounts to an offence against God, more precisely against Christ the King. For this reason the heinousness of the doctrine of Religious Liberty and all that flows from it may most clearly be seen in the light of the Kingship of Christ.
Pope Leo XIII writes [2]: ‘… God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything without exception must be subject to Him, and must serve Him’; he writes further [3]: ‘[Christ’s] empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons… but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.’ Commenting on the latter passage in Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI teaches: ‘Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether individually or collectively, are under the dominion of Christ. In Him is the salvation of the individual, in Him is the salvation of society. ‘Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under Heaven given to man whereby we must be saved’ (Acts 4. 12)’.
Lionel: The Social Reign of Christ the King can still be proclaimed when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Council and the Council will then support traditional esclusivism, traditional ecclesiocentrism.
___________________
The Council peritus Father Francis J. Connell CSSR explains the importance of this doctrine in regard to the scope of Christ’s authority: this scope is wider than that of the Church, Whose authority extends only to Her members, in that it extends to all mankind [4]. This entails that: ‘The real point at issue is not the relation between the State and the Catholic Church, but rather the relation between the State and Christ the King’ [5]. A consequence of this principle is, as the same Father Connell points out, that after the promulgation of the encyclical, civil authorities no longer have the power to enact immoral legislation, such as ‘divorce’ with the right to ‘re-marriage’.
Lionel: But the doctrine is made superflous when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the False Premise. Since if there is known salvation outside the Church why have Traditional Mission ? Why do people need to be Catholic ? Why proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King ? , it is asked.
_________________
Now, as subjected to Christ the King, the State has not only the negative obligations of opposing Religious Liberty for all and the propagation of error, as we have just seen; but also the positive and specifically supernatural obligation of worshipping the One and Triune God. This obligation on the State is twofold: to worship God itself, and to help its citizens worship Him themselves: it ‘will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ’; and will be intent ‘to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under credit and sanction of the laws’ [6]. Father Connell gives as an example of the former duty of a State (that is of worshipping God as a State) the opening paragraph of the Constitution of Ireland: ‘In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from whom is all authority and to whom, as our final end, all actions, both of men and states must be referred, we, the people of Eire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ…’ (ibid.)
Inasmuch as the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ is the key to understanding the State’s obligations, both negative and positive, towards the Church, it may be considered the determining, or, in Aristotelian-Scholastic terms, the formal, principle of Catholic social teaching, and yet it is mentioned nowhere in the respective Council document. Michael Davies remarks: ‘The studious avoidance of the least reference to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ is one of the most deplorable aspects of Dignitatis Humanae’ [7]. In fact the term ‘Christ the King’ appears neither there, nor indeed, as we mentioned above, anywhere else at all in the Council documents.
Lionel: Michael Davies interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS with the False Premise ending the need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics.
___________________
If we were to ask whether the dethronement of Christ the King was only a negative act, or whether it in fact set the stage for the enthronement of another, then we must answer that the latter was the case. For the Council effectively replaces the Social Kingship of Christ, or Christ the King, with man as the determining, or formal, principle of Catholic social teaching with the statement that we have referred to in the last subsection: ‘… humanity… is and it ought to be the beginning, the subject and the object of every social organization’ (GS 25) [8]. This statement in Gaudium et Spes together with its underpinning in the anthropocentrically entitled Dignitatis Humanae [9], both promulgated on December 7th 1965, forty years, almost to the day, from the encyclical Quas Primas, were indeed to elevate man to God’s throne as King of the World.
Lionel: But Don Pietro Leone and the editor at Rorate Caeili do the same with they refuse to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise.
____________________
We conclude this section with a passage from the commentary of St. Bede on the Apocalypse [10]: ‘And he has as his garment and on his thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.’ ‘This is the name which none of the proud knows. It is written on the tables of the Church’s heart; not with ink but with the Spirit of the Risen Lord.’
Lionel: He is denied by those who interpret Vatican Council II like George Soros and break with Tradition, including the teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King, Traditional Ecclesiocentric Mission and Inter faith dialogue, Traditioinal esclusivist Ecumenism etc. -Lionel Andrades
Politically correct reports on Rorate Caeili
The weblog Rorate Caeili has posted so many articles/reports on Vatican Council II, all interpreted with the Fake Premise, the most recent ones are those written by Don Pietro Leone.He uses a False Premise to interpret the Council II and then blames the Council. He is a supporter of the liberals. He does not know about the Rational Premise and is interpreting Vatican Council II like the liberals and pro-liberal traditionalist bishops all over the world.
Similarly a report by Fr. Serafino Lanzetta on Rorate Caeili mentions the faith. He is referring to the same faith as the English liberal bishops.He has written an article on faith but what is the faith he is proclaiming ? Fr. Serafino Lanzetta, and his religious community in England, are maintaining- a- politically- correct- with- the- Left artificial break with Tradition.With the False Premise he maintains a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and this would be appreciated by the English bishops.So with the False Premise he has to choose between Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors.
With the Rational Premise I do not have to choose between Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors.The Council ( LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) does not contradict the Syllabus.
To re-interpert Magisterial Documents with a False Premise is heresy.It is first class heresy when the Athanasius Creed is rejected and the Nicene Creed re-interpreted. So even at Mass in Latin these are mortal sins of faith.
This was not mentioned by Roberto dei Mattei in his article on heresy posted on Rorate Caeili.
Mattei is following the mainstream Catholic Church's heresy on Vatican Council II. Like Fr. Serafino Lanzetta he does not affirm the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.It is the same with the editor at Rorate Caeili ( 'New Catholic' or 'F.R' ).
Peter Kwasniewski gave a talk at Denver which was hollow.
Since from the beginning to the end he was politically correct with the use of Fake Premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.
This is the Catholic Church for him.
Kwasniewski once told a seminarian that Catholic Tradition ended on the eve of Vatican Council II.
If Kwasniewski interprets Magisterial documents with the Rational Premise then Catholic Tradition will no more end with Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
-Lionel Andrades
They still interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with a False Premise and consider it traditional ?
 |
| They still interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the False Premise and consider it traditonal ? Some of them have come from countries where the liberal bishops have approved the Latin Mass offered with the new ecclesiology created by the False Premise. - Lionel Andrades https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/10/sumpont2021-procession-and-mass-at.html |
If you have a Vocation to the Religious Life and if it is possible, choose a Catholic Religious community which looks at LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as referring to only hypothetical cases : choose the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA
If you have a Vocation to the Religious Life and if it is
possible, choose a Catholic Religious community
which looks at LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican
Council II as referring to only hypothetical cases. So they are not practical
exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.
Most Religious Communities project LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being practical exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors ( ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church) etc.This is irrational.They imply that there are visible and known people saved outside the Church without faith and the baptism of water.This is a false premise.Physically there are no such cases. So Vatican Council II is not really a break with Tradition.
If you live in New Hampshire, USA you will find a Catholic religious community, which does not make the common mistake, they do not interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise. You could join them.Keep your conscience clear.
Since the sedevacantist CMRI community in New Hampshire interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with the False Premise.
The Carmelites and Franciscans in New Hampshire also interpret Magisterial Documents with the Fake Premise to create a fake rupture with traditional ecclesiocentrism.The bishop at New Hampshire, in the diocese of Manchester,USA, Bishop Peter Libasci does the same.
It is the same in Boston and the rest of New England. The liberals and traditionalists make the same mistake. The result is mortal sins of faith. The Creeds are changed and the Catechisms re-interpreted.The political Left clap.
The Athanasius Creed says all need faith and baptism for salvation and bishops Pfieffer, Sanborn, Pivarunas and Fellay say there are exceptions.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and these bishops say there are exceptions. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are physically visible exceptions for them.
Where are the practical exceptions, ask yourself ? How can there be exceptions?
With their exceptions-theory, bishops Pfieffer,Sanborn, Pivarunas and Fellay are like the liberals, ecclesiastics and Masons, who support heresy, schism, doctrinal division and liberalism in the Catholic Church.If Bishop Peter Libasci did not use the Fake Premise then he would be affirming Magisterial Documents like the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire in the diocese of Manchester USA.
There could then be a Decree of Prohibitions issued against Bishop Libasci and his Curia.So his theology and doctrines are false but politically correct with the Left. Avoid this.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
