The annual Lefebvrist-Cushingite
Catholic Identity Conference will be
held next week in which they will interpret Magisterial Documents,expecially
Vatican Council II, with a false premise to change the understanding of the
Creeds and Catechisms and the faith in general-blame the Novus Ordo Mass and
call all this our Catholic identity.With the False Premise the Kingship of Christ and Traditional Mission is negated.
The politically correct traditionalists
will not interpret Magisterial Documents with the rational premise and so not
get permission to hold their annual conference next year. The Jewish Left will
object.
But they do not have a Catholic identity as
long as they use the false premise and avoid the rational option.There is a
rupture with the missionaries of the 16th century.
Their rupture comes with the False
Premise which creates the New Theology. This is a Specific Error in Vatican
Council II but the Lefebvrists are
unaware of it. They blame the Council vaguely and not their personal error.
The Lefebvrists, like the liberals, do
not deny that they use the False Premise, they simply continue with it.Archbishop Lefebvre used the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. He rejected Vatican Council II which he interpreted with the New Theology.
Instead the Lefebvrists and liberals, need to switch to the rational premise to have a Catholic identity like that of the missionaries in the Middle Ages.They were Feeneyites.
NOUVELLE THEOLOGIE IS NOT THE NEW THEOLOGY CREATED WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The Nouvelle Theologie that the Lefebvrists refer to is really the New Theology created with the False
Premise, whch they use in ignorance,to interpret Vatican Council II.Thomas Pink
once referred to the New Theology and admitted that he did not know how it was caused. While Roberto dei
Mattei and Joseph Shaw, a few years back at a conference in Rome,spoke on the
New Theology, not knowing that they use it to interpret Vatican Council II.This
is still unknown to them.
Timothy Flanders the new editor at the blog 1Peter5 in his recent podcast briefly refers to the Nouvelle Theologie but he uses the New Theology to interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms, like the Lefebvrists and the liberals. If he would avoid the Fake Premise, he returns to Catholic Tradition, but no more like a Lefebvrist, but a Feeneyite.
PRECISE NT OF VATICAN COUNCIL II WAS NOT CREATED BY REGINALD GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE
He must know that the precise Nouvelle Theologie of Vatican Council II,was not created or identified by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.It was created by the Council Fathers(1965) from the Fake Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).That Letter rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and postulated unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known and objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the
Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may
obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated
into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to
her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the
Archbishop of Boston
FOUR MARKS OF THE CHURCH WITH ECCLESIOCENTRISM OR WITHOUT IT
On Church Militant TV, Joe Sixpack still presents the Four Marks of the
Church ( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic-Nicene Creed) without mentioning the
New Theology created with the False Premise, a Specific Error of the Council
Fathers at Vatican Council II.
Even Cardinal Walter Kasper could say that he affirms the Four Marks of the Church but- with the False Premise,rejects traditional ecclesiocentrism.We Catholics can choose today from a non ecclesiocentric and ecclesiocentric Church- with or without the error.Why ?
Since the popes from Paul VI have
interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise and chose non
ecclesiocentrism and the popes from Pius XII
have interpreted EENS, the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and
invincible ignorance with the false premise, and made the same political left
choice.
TRADITIONIS CUSTODE WITH THE IRRATIONAL PREMISE
I too affirm the Four Marks of the Church, but my ecclesiology,is different from Joe Sixpack and Cardinal Kasper.So I was the only one who wrote about how Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode did not interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise.His interpretation of Vatican Council II is not our Catholic identity.The Lefebvrists-sedevacantists,Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen( Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae) whose Superior General is Bishop Mark Pivarunas in Nebraska, USA did not check Pope Francis on this point.How could they ?
ECCLESIOCENTRIC VATICAN COUNCIL II MAKES SEDEVACANTISM OBSOLETE
If Bishop Pivarunas did make that necessary announcement he would be telling his sedevantist community that Vatican Council II and EENS could be interpreted with a rational premise and the CMRI had made a mistake all these years.There is no more a theological basis for sedevacantism based upon Vatican Council II.Since with the rational premise the Council is dogmatic, traditional, ecclesiocentric and non schismatic.There is no rupture with St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Domingo de Soto,Melchior Cano and Roberto Bellarmine.
But this is difficult for bishops Pivarunas, Sanborn and others.It is the same for the organizers of the Catholic Identity Conference..-Lionel Andrades
Posts
