Saturday, July 31, 2021
Cardinals and bishops use a false premise, which is unethical, and no one checks them.This issue is public and dishonest. It is a secular issue in this sense.But there is no organization or system to show the Italian politicians like Matteo Salvini how interpreting Vatican Council II rationally is in their political interest and that of the Catholics of Italy
There is no organisation in the Catholic Church which calls attention to
specific cases when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the false premise
and not the rational premise, which is always an option.For example, in
Washington D.C why should Archbishop
Wilton Gregory and Jesuit Georgetown University, interpret Vatican Council II
with a false premise ? Why should they confuse what is invisible as being
visible and then consider it Catholic ?
Why are there no restrictions for priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass
but interpret Vatican Council II irrationally ? This is unethical in a public
and secular sense.
Similarly Cardinal Cupich and Mundelein seminary,Chicago, should interpret Vatican Council II rationally. They could interpret the
Council rationally and then go back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the
Catholic Church.They should be proclaiming that outside the Catholic Church
there is no salvation instead of there is salvation.
We now know, but they do not seem to know, that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,
NA 2, GS 22 etc, are invisible cases. So they cannot be visible examples of
salvation outside the Church.They cannot be exceptions to the Athanasius Creed
which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.
This would be obvious for most people. But cardinals and bishops use a false premise, which is unethical, and no one checks them.This issue is public and dishonest. It is a secular issue in this sense.But there is no organization or system to show the Italian politicians like Matteo Salvini how interpreting Vatican Council II rationally is in their political interest and that of the Catholics of Italy.-Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake when he used the false premise to interpret the Councils and so also the Creeds and Catechisms
JULY 31, 2021
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 politically correct with the Left and Traditionlis Custode
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-sspx-is-notproclaiming-social-reign.html
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 politically correct with the Left and Traditionlis Custode
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
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is
rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston.
In the their recent interview Sammons cited the Bible to show that Jesus and the Catholic Church, membership in the Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation.
For example, on the Road to Damascus , Jesus says, “Saul, Saul,
why do you persecute me ?” Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus identified
with the Church, the Catholic Church.This is the Church which has given us the
Bible, from which Sammon was quoting.
In Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) it is written that all need
faith and baptism for salvation. The word All is there.With the rational
interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc, being hypothetical and invisible in the present times(2021) cannot
be practical exceptions to AG 7 or outside the Church there is no salvation(CCC
846).There are not practical exceptions to the word 'all'.
The baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), being only
speculative and not formally known examples of salvations. They never were
practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Ignatius
of Loyola and the Jesuits of his time.
So this is a Vatican Council II with 1 ) LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,
NA 2, GS 22 etc invisible and hypothetical only ( as I see it) and then 2) there is
the common interpretation with LG 8, LG 14 , UR 3 etc seen as physically
visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church,
without faith and baptism.
Sammons and Weston have to show that when popes and cardinals
choose the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II it cannot be
Magisterial. The Holy Spirit will not call something invisible as being
visible and then create a New Theology based upon this error in observation. An
empirical error of observation.
Yet the New Evangelisation and New Ecumenism is based upon this
error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So there is a Vatican Council II in harmony with outside the
Church there is no salvation and there is a Vatican Council II which is a
rupture with Tradition in general and in partcular the salvation-dogma.
In Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis was
interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc being
physically visible and personally known cases in 1965-2021.This is a major mistake.This is
irrational.It is deceptive. If any one was saved as such it would only be known
to God.The norm for salvation in the Catholic Church has always been faith and
the baptism of water.The norm is not LG 8,LG 16 etc.The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not the norm.
There is no Extraordinary Way of Salvation known to us
practically. If there were exceptions for the norm it would only be known to
God.Here SSPX priests make a mistake
when they refer to the Extraordinary Way of salvation.This was the mistake in
the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that not every one needs to be a
formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation and cites BOD and I.I as
practical exceptions.
So when we confuse what is theoretical as being practical, it
becomes irrational. So the false premise then creates a non traditional
conclusion, which is not Magisterial, even if it is supported by the popes.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and the popes and bishops must choose the rational option.We then go back to traditional mission-doctrines.We read Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium, the entire text,differently. The red ( passages which refer to the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance) are not exceptions to the blue ( passages which support orthodoxy). –Lionel Andrades
JULY 30, 2021
In John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/in-john-henry-westons-interview-of-eric.html
Posts
