Pope Francis and Archbishop Arthur Roche
call Vatican Council II the work of the Holy Spirit and they interpret LG 8, LG
14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salUs
and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Magisterium. How can the Holy
Spirit make a factual mistake and a break with Tradition? It is a fact of life
that there are no known cases of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of
desire and invincible ignorance in the present times ( 1949-2021).It is really their interpretation with a Fake Premise which creates the objective mistake. The
same mistake with the Fake Premise was made in the Letter of the Holy Office (CDF)
to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.Unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were projected as practical and exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
For me LG 8, LG 16 etc are invisible and
hypothetical and so I can accept Vatican Council II. LG 8, LG 16 etc are not
practical exceptions for EENS. Many people agree with
me. This is something obvious. It is common sense. My interpretation is in
harmony with the past Magisterium which was inspired by the Holy Spirit.It is not my personal observation it is an observation any one can make.
So the present day popes are Magisterial
only when they interpret Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc) with
the Rational Premise. With the irrational premise they confuse invisible cases
of LG 8, LG 16 etc as being visible. Then they infer that in the present times
there are explicit and objective exceptions for EENS etc, mentioned in Vatican
Council II. So they conclude that the Holy Spirit has inspired the Church to
break with Tradition and that this is the new direction the Church must take.
They do not acknowledge that they made a
mistake in Traditionis Custode when they interpreted the Council with a False
Premise like Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Traditionis Custode is being implemented
by cardinals and bishops who also interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake
Premise and then place restrictions on Holy Mass in Latin.
It is not said, that if Bishop Roland
Minnerath, for example , interpreted Vatican Council II with the Rational
Premise then he would become a traditionalist like the Latin laity in Dijon, France.
Since the Council would not contradict the dogma EENS and the Catechism of Pope
Pius X (24Q, 27Q).
Similarly if Pope Francis, Cardinal
Ladaria and Archbishop Roche would interpret Vatican Council II with the
Rational Premise, the Council would no more contradict the Syllabus of Errors
of Pope Pius IX. They would instead be conservative, like the missionaries and
Magisterium of the 16th century.
The theological liberalism of Cardinal
Marx and Cardinal Kasper was only possible because they used the False Premise
to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as did some of the
Council Fathers at Vatican Council II(1965).However in spite of the objective
error of these Council Fathers ( Rahner, Ratzinger, Cushing etc) Vatican
Council II can be interpreted today with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc, referring to only hypothetical, subjective, theoretical and non objective
cases in 2021.So we are back to the old theology and the past exclusivist
ecclesiology, without making any change
in the text of Vatican Council II. We simply look at the text and read LG 8, LG
14, LG 16, UR 3 etc, as referring to a thought in the mind. It’s speculative
and not a concrete person.
So we are left with the same Vatican
Council II before us of Cardinals Kasper, Koch and Marx but it is a Council
which is Feeneyite. It is dogmatic. It supports the traditional strict interpretation
of EENS. So pastorally we would support an exclusivist and traditional
ecumenism and an ecclesiocentric approach in inter-religious dialogue. It would
be part of traditional Catholic Mission. Since in general all non Catholics are
oriented to Hell ( AG 7, EENS, CDF Notification on Fr. J. Dupuis sj etc) and
there are no exceptions mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II when we
avoid the False Premise. With the Rational Premise we change our perspective
and the Council changes before our very eyes. We no more have to use the lens
of Rahner, Ratzinger and Lefebvre. We can choose the hermeneutic of continuity
with Tradition even if a rupture is chosen by Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop
Roche and Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke.
Interpreting Vatican Council II like Traditionis Custode would be a sin for a good Catholic. Since the False Premise produces a new version of the Nicene and Apostles Creed, reje
cts the Athanasius Creed, creates a non Magisterial version of EENS and an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, even though a rational choice is available.
We follow Jesus. We follow the Bible
inspired by the Holy Spirit and upheld by the popes and saints over the centuries.
We should not reject Sacred Tradition with an irrational premise, which needs
to be identified and corrected by Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria.
We still have the same Vatican Council II before us. No changes are to be made. We simply look at the Council differently – and theology changes.
There is no more a break with Tradition
in the name of Vatican Council II. This is irrespective if Holy Mass is in
Latin or the vernacular.
We now know how to switch on or off the
hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition. We have found out the
secret.-Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 20, 2021
All the cardinals, bishops, priests, religiosu sisters and lay catechists must only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. It is the moral thing to do.
All the cardinals, bishops, priests, religious sisters and lay catechists must only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. It is the moral thing to do. Pope Francis could take back Traditionis Custode since it wrongly interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise. The Fake Premise is also used by the Lefebvrists, Thucs and those who attend the Latin Mass.
The Fake Premise produces a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II and schism with the past Magisterium.
We can interpret Vatican Council II rationally and re-interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11 etc as referring to hypothetical cases only in 1965-2021. SO they cannot be practical exceptions for the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. They are not examples of salvation outside the Church. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So new books and articles should be written on Vatican Council II interpreted with a Fake Premise. This was the mistake of
Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Marx must announce
that Vatican Council II will be interpreted rationally in the German Catholic seminaries, universities and theological publications.-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment