Over time Catholics will ask themselves why should they use the irrational interpretation of Vatcan Council II when a rational option exists which is traditional and not in schism with the past Magisterium ?

 Fr Anthony Ruff at the blog Pray, Tell  comments on  Traditionalism, American-Style by Massimo Faggioli ( Commonweal Magazine)

Extracts:

In Faggioli’s telling, there are two sides in things liturgical. Either one supports Vatican II and the reformed liturgy to the exclusion of the preconciliar liturgy, or one shows greater or lesser openness to the preconciliar liturgy, which seems to be equated with opposition to Vatican II. This way of dividing things up was more or less the position of Paul VI, and it seems to be the position most compatible with the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Lionel : There is a choice when we are aware of the False and Rational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. We no more will have the present polarisation.Since there will no more be a poltiical and schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II being the only choice. It is because the liberals and traditionalists are interpreting Vatican Council II without the Rational Premise we have all this confusion.

_____________________

But that doesn’t mean that everyone behaves themselves today by aligning with one or the other side. It would be interesting to explore further the mindset of those people who don’t fit neatly in either camp – those who, for example, happily worship primarily with the Vatican II liturgy, but don’t see the preconciliar liturgy as particularly bad or harmful and don’t mind attending it at times.

Perhaps these people are mistaken: the case can be made, and has been made ably by many, that the preconciliar liturgy is incompatible with the large advances made by the Second Vatican Council in ecclesiology and liturgical theology and inculturation and all the rest. What to do, then, with those ambivalent Catholics who do not see the incoherence of their liturgical sensitivities?

Lionel: The large advances were made with Vatican Council II interpreted with the Fake Premise.When the Rational Premise is used there is no  break with the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before Vatican Council II. There is no more a new ecclesiology. 

______________________________

The number of such Catholics may be small, but they are overrepresented among younger clergy and laity, which means their influence, for better or worse, will likely increase in coming years. One can only hope that Francis is able to inspire these folks to adopt his and Paul VI’s interpretation of Vatican II, but that remains very much to be seen.

Lionel: This will be difficult because over time Catholics will realize that Pope Paul VI's interpretation of the Council was non traditional because of the False Premise. If he had used the Rational Premise there would be no break with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc). So Catholics will ask themselves why should they use the irrational interpretation of Vatcan Council II when a rational option exists which is traditional and not in schism with the past Magisterium ?.

___________________________

But Faggioli’s primary concern is not those whose somewhat conservative-leaning liturgical sensitivities impair their full acceptance of Vatican II. His focus is on the traditionalists who are most hostile to Pope Francis. And Faggioli calls out Benedict XVI for his role in setting up the current divisions these traditionalists are fomenting:

“(T)he rupture that Benedict XVI created in advancing liturgical traditionalism (see 2007’s Summorum Pontificum) and in his policies on Vatican II is something today’s traditionalists can exploit—and they do.”

In my view, and I don’t think Faggioli would disagree, Benedict XVI made a tragic miscalculation. He did not see that the liturgical infelicities and abuses in the manner of celebrating the postconciliar liturgy (Richard J. Neuhaus spoke of the “silly season”) were already in a process of self-correction by the 1980s and 1990s, and that the liturgy of Paul VI was beginning to come into its own as a beautiful and reverent celebration of the entire community. A sort of liturgical “re-Catholicization” was happily underway, but now, at its best at least, rooted in the genius of the reformed rite.

Benedict was still reacting to the liturgical problems of the 60s and 70s and thought, oddly, that the existence of the old liturgy would somehow improve the way the reformed liturgy is celebrated. We should take Benedict at his word that he accepted the so-called “ordinary form” of the Roman rite. He was never in the traditionalists’ camp, however much they appealed to him. He was in fact passionate about a more worthy celebration of the liturgy of Paul VI. His manner of getting there was questionable. If anything, Summorum Pontificum slowed down the process of “re-Catholicization” of the Pauline liturgy by pushing people into two opposing liturgical camps, thereby making defenders of the Pauline liturgy (the much larger camp) more defensive about  the status quo.

Faggioli’s piece in Commonweal helpfully portrays the liturgical divide between those who fully accept Vatican II and those who do not. I hope my comments here help fill out the picture by also taking into consideration those who fall somewhere in between these contrasting positions. With their divided loyalties and their idiosyncratic understandings of Vatican II, they are a group to be taken seriously.

Lionel: When the Council is interpreted with the Rational Premise the Council is ecclesiocentric, traditional and Feeneyite. There is no more be the present ambiguity which comes with the False Premise.So the Synods in future will have to accept an ecclesiocentric Vatican Council II without the New Theology. They will either have to reject or accept Vatican Council II. There will no more be room for the present liberalism. The present liberals will not be able to cite the Council to support their modernist theology since the False Premise will not be there.This will also affect their understanding of the liturgy. Since even at the Novus Ordo Mass there ecclesiology will have to exclusivist. There will not be any other rational choice. -Lionel Andrades

awr

https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/11/24/faggioli-on-u-s-traditionalism-a-response/

Traditionalism, American-Style

A new kind of opposition to Rome

By Massimo Faggioli

November 23, 2021

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/traditionalism-american-style?utm_content=buffer31891&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twi

Was Vatican Council II only a pastoral Council? Then why does Cardinal Raymond Burke reject it and Pope Benedict support it and why does the liberal mainstream media calls the Council ‘ a revolution ‘ in the Church and refers to ‘the reforms’ of Vatican Council II ? So this Council must be more then pastoral to produce such reactions.

Was Vatican Council II only a pastoral Council? Then why does Cardinal Raymond Burke reject it  and Pope Benedict  support it  and why does the liberal mainstream media calls the Council  ‘ a revolution ‘ in the Church and refers to ‘the reforms’ of Vatican Council II ?

So this Council must be more then pastoral to produce such reactions.

For me the Council has continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. The Council is saying outside the Church there is no salvation and the Council is interpreted by me with the old theology.

I do not have a choice; I can only interpret the Council with the old theology, since I only use the Rational Premise.

The Council is traditional and Feeneyite for me.

Is the Council also pastoral? Yes with the old ecclesiology and so it supports traditional mission.We have Traditional Mission  based upon the old ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. So I can also proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics based upon the ecclesiocentrism of Vatican Council II.

So inter-religious dialogue and ecumenical meetings would be missionary for me.This would be my pastoral approach within the Catholic community too. -Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Arthur Roche refers to the old and new Magisterium with reference to Vatican Council II and the Latin Mass.But now we know that there is a Ratonal and Irrational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and Roche is using the Fake Premise to create a ‘new magisterium’.

 

Archbishop Arthur Roche refers to the old and new Magisterium with reference to Vatican Council II and the Latin Mass.But now we know that there is a Ratonal and Irrational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and Roche is using the Fake Premise to create a ‘new magisterium’.So irrepective if the Mass is in English or Latin, the ecclesiology  of the Church is always exclusivist, like in 1580 when the Latin Mass was inititated.So the Missal of Pope John Paul II is not a break with the traditional ecclesiology of the Latin Mass if the Fake Premise is avoided.

The new ecclesiology of Archbishop Roche and the Left is based on the False Premise and so cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not Magisterial.

This Easter Catholics can attend Holy Mass in Rome in Italian  too and it can have the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology . Since there is no new theology when we do not want to create an artificial hermeneutic of rupture with the past.We simply avoid the premise and we return to the old theology.We can attend Holy Mass in English, Portughese etc with the old theology of the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16^th century.-Lionel Andrades

https://opusdei.org/en-uk/article/homily-of-archbishop-arthur-roche-at-westminster-cathedral-on-12-may-2015-for-the-mass-of-blessed-alvaro-del-portillo/

Don Pietro Leone is still giving us the political version of Vatican Council II, the schismatic one, approved by the Left : he will not answer if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible or visible cases in 2021

 Don Pietro Leone and the web blog Rorate Caeili (F.G) are still giving us the political version of Vatican Council II, the schismatic one, approved by the Left. We all agree it is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).But  for Don Leone  LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible non Catholics saved  outside the Church. So they become  visible exceptions for EENS.But for me LG 8 etc are always invisible cases. They are not objective people in 1965-2021.So they cannot be exceptions for EENS.On the other hand Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports Feeneyite EENS.The baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are not objective exceptions for AG 7.They are always invisible.So Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS for me as it does for him.

When I read the text of Vatican Council II there is no theological opening for the New Ecumenism. Since with EENS not contradicted we are back to the old exclusivist ecumenism and the past ecclesiocentric inter-religious dialogue, which is an opportunity for Catholic mission.Since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell with no known exceptions, unless they enter the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water (AG 7 /LG 14, CCC 846 etc).

For Don Leone and Rorate Caeili  LG 8 etc refer to visible cases and so there are exceptions for EENS and so, in a big give away, it is possible for the liberals to promote the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc. Don Leone and Rorate Caeili have only one way of reading the Council-text. It is the same as the liberals.

Leone and F.G at Rorate Caeili use the Fake Premise (invisible cases are physically visible, LG 8 etc refer to known people in particular cases saved outside the Church in the present times). I use the Rational Premise (invisible cases are invisible, LG 8 etc refer to speculative and theoretical cases only. Always).So their conclusion is non traditional (outside the Church there is salvation, known exceptions to EENS) and my interpretation is traditional (outside the Church there is no salvation).They produce the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition, like the liberals, and I, one of continuity.

 They both accept the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which used the Fake Premise to interpret BOD and I.I. I am not obliged to do the same. They interpret Vatican Council II with the common Fake Premise, like the liberals. I am not obliged to do the same.

They know that they have a problem since when I keep asking Don Leone and Rorate Caeili (F.G) if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible or visible cases in 2021, they do not answer.

In his latest post  Don Leone refers to extra ecclesiam nulla salus being negated by Vatican Council II. Of course it will be negated since the Council Fathers accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and used the Fake Premise to create a New Theology, which negates traditional EENS.But they have a choice. We can interpret LG 8 etc with the Rational Premise and there will be no rupture with EENS. But they do not do this and produce more reports with the same error.

Don Pietro Leone refers to EENS but does not qualify which one is he referring to: that of the Lefebvrists or the Feeneyites, with the Fake Premise or without it, in harmony with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) or in a break with traditional Feeneyite EENS.-Lionel Andrades

Bishop Robert Barron and Jordan Peterson dialogue while holding concepts of Vatican Council II interpreted with a False Premise : without Catholic Documents interpreted with the Fake Premise their concept of Christianity would change

 NOVEMBER 29, 2021

Bishop Robert Barron and Jordan Peterson dialogue while holding concepts of Vatican Council II interpreted with a False Premise : without Catholic Documents interpreted with the Fake Premise their concept of Christianity would change. The Church in its ecclesiology would be the same as in the 16th century.- Lionel Andrades

Without the Fake Premise Bishop Roland Minnerath will be a Traditionalist. It is the same for the new bishop in Dijon, France

 

-                                                                                                          Lionel Andrades

A group of French Catholics have written to Pope Francis’ ambassador describing the qualities they expect their next bishop to possess.

Some 50 laypeople are seeking to influence the type of person who will be appointed to replace Roland Minnerath, the current Archbishop of Dijon.

Msgr Minnerath turned 75 on Saturday, the age when bishops are expected to submit their resignation to the pope.

“We expect our next bishop to be ‘a fellow traveler and a brother’, at a time when the synod launched by Pope Francis is opening in the Church,” say the Catholics of Dijon in a letter to Archbishop Celestino Migliore.

Archbishop Migliore, the Apostolic Nuncio to France, will play a key role in proposing candidates to succeed Archbishop Minnerath.

The group, from 16 different parishes and 25 Catholic movements, was formed when Pope Francis published his Letter to the people of God in August 2018. Their mission is “To understand what it means to follow Christ today and to try to put it into practice”.

They decided to take advantage of the impending appointment of a new bishop to express several ideas for a new way of governance in the archdiocese. They also want a closer examination of the recommendations made by the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Church (CIASE).

“With him (the next archbishop), we would like to build an organization that is at the service of these communities, putting in place, wherever necessary, transparency and safeguards that prevent abuse and control over people and minds,” specifies the letter to the nuncio.

The tone of the text is warm and addresses Archbishop Migliore as “dear brother”. In the letter, the signatories express a type of “offer of service” by proposing to the future bishop to entrust missions to professionals, particularly human resources and financial management.

https://cathnews.co.nz/2021/11/29/french-catholics-tell-popes-ambassador-what-kind-of-bishop-they-want/?touch=tmpno

Vatican Council II was not dogmatic for Pope Paul VI since he used the False Premse and created exceptions for EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and Athanasius Creed

 

                                                                      -Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 7, 2018

The entire theology of Pope Paul VI and the USCCB on Mixed Marriages was wrong.It was based upon an irrationality.The result is non traditional and heretical. It is the 'smoke of Satan' within the Catholic Church stoked by Pope Paul VI.

In addition to the sacred character of all valid marriages, still more must be said of marriages between a Catholic and another baptized Christian. According to our Catholic tradition, we believe such marriages to be truly sacramental.-Statement on the implementation of the Apostolic Letter on Mixed Marriages,USCCB(1970).
Lionel:

This is heretical but it must be expected since the USCCB and Pope Paul VI interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.

There there is known salvation outside the Church for Cushingites.Theoretical cases are assumed to be objective. This is a typical Cushingite Reading. 

So the USCCB rejects  the Catechism of Pope Pius X which says Protestants are outside the Church and all need to be Catholic to be saved.

So how can a marriage to a Protestant or Orthodox Christian be a sacrament ?

This is an attack on the family and marriage.Sr. Lucia at Fatima predicted that in the end times, in the battle Satan will attack the family.

'The Apostolic Letter states that there exists between persons united in them a special "communion of spiritual benefits".These spiritual bonds in which couples are united are gounded in the "true, though imperfect, communion" which exists between the Catholic Church and all who believe in Christ and are properly baptized ( Decree on Ecumenism,n.3).'-- Statement on the Implementation of the Apostolic Letter ( Matrimonia Mixta),USCCB, ,p.17, St Paul's Books and Media, Boston, MA).

Lionel:

Cushingites at the USCCB, like Pope Paul VI, see the Decree on Ecumenism n.3( Unitatitis Redintigratio 3) as saying there are Christians saved outside the Catholic Church.They are saved without Catholic Faith.For Cushingites these are personally known people.So they become exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),Since they exist in our reality they become exceptions.If they did not exist and were invisible they would not be exceptions to traditional EENS.

So the USSCB like Pope Paul VI takes it for granted that UR 3 refers to objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They are projected as exceptions to the past exclusive ecclesiology on salvation. So Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals and Evangelicals do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

They are not outside the Church and so the mixed marriage is considered to be a Sacrament.

There is an imperfect communion between Protestants and Catholics, according to the USCCB and this is sufficient for salvation.

A Feeneyite Reading of Vatican Council II would say the Decree on Ecumenism n. 3(UR 3) refers to theoretical and hypothetical Christians, saved outside the Catholic Church. Practically there are no such people in 2018. No human could detect and judge such a case over the last 50 years or during Vatican Council II.This is something obvious.

We cannot know of any Protestant, Orthodox Christian or Baptist saved in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

So the Catholic spouse in a mixed marriage is living in adultery.His spouse is outside the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus, and so is oriented to Hell at the time of death.The marriage is not a Sacrament.


A marriage is a Sacrament only between two Catholics. There are only Catholics in Heaven.

So we see that the entire theology of Pope Paul VI and the USCCB on Mixed Marriages was wrong.It was based upon an irrationality.The result is non traditional and heretical. It is the 'smoke of Satan' within the Catholic Church stoked by Pope Paul VI.-Lionel Andrades

 OCTOBER 6, 2018

Smoke of Satan of Matrimonia Mista ( Mixed Marriages ) of Pope Paul VI  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/smoke-of-satan-of-pope-paul-vi-mixed.html

OCTOBER 6, 2018

USCCB interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So mixed marriages are not adultery   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/usccb-interprets-vatican-council-ii.html

 OCTOBER 6, 2018

The moto proprio of Pope Paul VI on Mixed Marriages is Cushingite.Since he did not know of a Vatican Council II, Feeneyite

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-moto-proprio-of-pope-paul-vi-on.html

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2018

Pope Paul VI who overlooked an objective mistake in the text of Vatican Council II which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and did away away with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by interpreting Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingite theology, instead of the rational and traditional Feeneyite version is to be canonized tomorrow.

Pope Paul VI who overlooked an objective mistake in the text of Vatican Council II which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and did away away with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by interpreting Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingite theology, instead of the rational and traditional Feeneyite version is to be canonized tomorrow.

Since he believed there was known salvation outside the Catholic  Church even though there were no practical cases, he permitted Mixed Marriages and did not consider the Catholic spouse as living in adultery. He permitted dispensations to be given for Mixed Marriages.

The pope did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney on outside the Church there is no salvation and allowed the Church to believe that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism blood and invincible ignorance were physically visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

Based on unknown cases being known exceptions to the general rule on salvation and faith there was new Mortal Theology introduced into the universities with this error.

So presently the traditional teachings on faith and morals have been changed. It is with a new ecclesiology and theology based on unknown non Catholics being saved outside the Church being known, that Catholics have to offfer/attend Holy Mass.

His 'revolutionary' world was appreciated by the World Council of Churches and the Jewish Left organisations. Pope Francis is to canonize him tomorrow.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 9, 2018

OCTOBER 8, 2018

Matrimonia Mixta of Pope Paul VI has become an attack on the family and marriage. The pope interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingite theology ( Graphics)   https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/matrimonia-mixta-of-pope-paul-vi-has.html

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2018

Smoke of Satan of Matrimonia Mista ( Mixed Marriages ) of Pope Paul VIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/smoke-of-satan-of-pope-paul-vi-mixed.html

OCTOBER 4, 2017

Michael Voris says Pope Paul VI asked Lefebvre to affirm Vatican Council II (Cushingite) in exchange for permission to consecrate bishopshttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/10/michael-voris-says-pope-paul-vi-asked.html

FEBRUARY 21, 2016

Pope Paul VI offered the Novus Ordo Mass with Cushingism and the new ecclesiology  https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/02/pope-paul-vi-offered-novus-ordo-mass.html