If Vatican Council II was interpreted with the Rational Premise, it would be honest and it would be in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit

 US bishops should help Latin Massgoers understand purpose of Francis' new restrictions

by Michael Sean Winters

 National Catholic Reporter, Dec 22, 2021

...The problem was always a problem with bishops and clergy for whom the old rite became an expression of an ideological rejection of the Second Vatican Council...

Lionel : Note. The writer(MSW) knows that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with a rational premise and the other without it , one with a traditional conclusion and the other without. But for ideological reasons he does not mention it. He continues to interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise.

____________

...Other bishops, though not hostile to reform themselves, simply refused to sound the alarm or discipline those under their pastoral care who were demonstrating an increasing hostility to Vatican II.

Lionel: MSW knows that Vatican Council II interpreted with the Fake Premise, by the National Catholic Reporter staff, creates schism and heresy and that  a rational alternative is available. If Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise then the pastoral approach would also be different.There could no more be a New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc since the Council would support the past ecclesiocentrism. It would be an exposure of the so called 'reforms'.

_________________

What is undeniable is that no one can think Francis is trying to dial back the reforming impetus of Vatican II.

Lionel : He is not going back, instead he is pushing ahead Vatican Council II interpreted with a Fake Premise and people now are aware of it.The writing is there on the wall.The foundations for the New Theology are no more there. They have been corrected and made known.

_________________

 In fact, he has brought all the energy and creativity that have marked the reception of Vatican II in the church of Latin America to the chair of Peter and thence to the universal church. This pontificate has turned those who held their nose at Vatican II from skeptics into schismatics...

Lionel : His interpretation of Vatican Council II with the False Premise produces a conclusion which is schismatic and heretic. This cannot be Magisterial.If he interpreted Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, it would be honest and it would be in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit.-Lionel Andrades

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/us-bishops-should-help-latin-massgoers-understand-purpose-francis-new-restrictions?utm_source=NCR+List&utm_campaign=6ab1285383-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_12_21_07_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6981ecb02e-6ab1285383-230712586

The interpretation of Vatican Council II with the False Premise has altered the faith and interrupted living tradition.It is only with the use of the False Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II that there could be a new lex orandi in the Church which is a break with the Pontificale Romanum and the Roman Ritual in its pre-Pope Paul VI editions.

 However, let me clarify one important matter. The liturgy is never simply a matter of personal tastes or preferences. It is the lex orandi of the Church, which in faithfulness to the tradition received from Apostolic times, is determined by the Church and not by individual members. The Roman Missal of the saintly Popes, Paul VI and John Paul II, is witness to an unaltered faith and uninterrupted and living tradition.-Archbishop Roche on ‘Traditionis Custodes’ and Its Guidelines: ‘The Litugical Possibilities Are in Place’ December 23, 2021

https://www.ncregister.com/interview/archbishop-roche-on-traditionis-custodes-and-its-guidelines-the-litugical-possibilities-are-in-place

Lionel : This is false. It is only with the use of the False Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II that there could be a new lex orandi in the Church which is a break with the Pontificale Romanum and the Roman Ritual in its pre-Pope Paul VI editions. If Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise there is no break with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. So the lex orandi would be the same. There would not be any theological opening for a ‘new Magisterium’, ‘reforms of Vatican Council II’, ‘new revelation’ etc.

The Roman Missal of the saintly Popes, Paul VI and John Paul II, is witness to an unaltered faith and uninterrupted and living tradition.

Their interpretation of Vatican Council II with the False Premise has altered the faith and interrupted living tradition. In the past the Church taught outside the Church there is no salvation and now it teaches outside the Church there is salvation. In the past the popes affirmed the Athanasius Creed now Pope Benedict and Pope Francis reject the Athanasius Creed. In the past there could only be an exclusivist ecumenism and the popes supported the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Now there is a New Ecumenism which rejects the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. These are only some examples of an altered faith, which was made possible with the use of a false premise in the interpretation of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with no exceptions, as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 12^th to 16 the century etc,etc.-Lionel Andrades

Why should a priest who is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church concelebrate Holy Mass with priests who reject Catholic traditional doctrinal beliefs and traditional de fide Church documents, with the use of an Irrational Premise? There is then no unity among believers on doctrine and theology at the Mass of the Chrism

 

The CDWS offered a number of clarifications regarding individual priests who wish to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass:

— Priests who refuse to concelebrate the diocesan Chrism Mass in the Ordinary Form should not be given permission to celebrate the Extraordinary Form.  

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-answers-the-dubia-on-traditionis

Lionel: Priests should ask the Congregation for Divine Worship to affirm Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise which is in harmony with the past Magisterium. Otherwise with the present False Premise they will be denying de fide teachings of the Catholic Church and they will be promoting mortal sins of faith. This is division.

Why should a priest who is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church concelebrate Holy Mass with priests who reject Catholic traditional doctrinal beliefs and traditional de fide Church documents, with the use of an Irrational Premise? There is then no unity among believers on doctrine and theology at the Mass of the Chrism.

___________________

"It is sad to see how the deepest bond of unity, the sharing in the one bread broken which is his body offered so that all may be one, becomes a cause for division," wrote Archbishop Arthur Roche, prefect of the congregation, in a document published Dec. 18.

In a formal "responsa ad dubia" -- response to questions -- Archbishop Roche said, "It is the duty of the bishops, cum Petro et sub Petro (with and under Peter, the pope), to safeguard communion, which, as the apostle Paul reminds us, is a necessary condition for being able to participate at the eucharistic table."

Writing to the presidents of bishops' conferences, the archbishop said, "As pastors we must not lend ourselves to sterile polemics, capable only of creating division, in which the ritual itself is often exploited by ideological viewpoints." 1

Lionel : There are two interpretations of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II and also other Magisterial Documents ( Catechisms of Trent and Pius X, Nicene Creed, Mystici Corporis etc).The error is not restricted to only Vatican Council II.

So Traditionis Custode with the irrational premise supports the irrational interpretation of the Creeds, Catechisms, EENS and Church Declarations ( Joint Declaration on Justification with Lutherans etc), Statements( Balamand) and Apostolic Letters and encyclicals.The irrational premise produces a false break with the past Magisterium. This is division. It also produces heresy and schism. This is division.2

-Lionel Andrades

1

https://angelusnews.com/news/vatican/vatican-answers-questions-on-limits-regarding-pre-vatican-ii-mass/

2

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.c2om/2021/12/dr-taylor-marshall-says-there-are-no.html

There are many who don't know Christ and are going to Hell

 

Gospel According to St John

Chapter 1

But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. [13] Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. [15] John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.

[16] And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace. [17] For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. [18] No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. [19] And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou? [20] And he confessed, and did not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ. -John 1 : 12-20 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

-Lionel Andrades

Signore crediamo profondamente che sei qui perché desideri essere sempre presente nella nostra vita

Dr. Taylor Marshall says there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’ baptism of desire (LG 14) but the Vatican Council II of Traditionis Custode says there are explicit cases. Yes there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire for Bishop Athanasius Schneider but there are such cases for Pope Francis. What is invisible for Schneider and Marshall is visible for the popes

 

Dr. Taylor Marshall says there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’ baptism of desire (LG 14) but the Vatican Council II of Traditionis Custode says there are explicit cases. Yes there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire for Bishop Athanasius Schneider but there are such cases for Pope Francis.

What is invisible for Schneider and Marshall is visible for the popes.

The irrational interpretation of LG 14 etc is the direction the Church will take says Archbishop Arthur Roche in his response to questions on Traditionis Custode. A few weeks earlier he referred to the New Magisterium in the Church with, of course, Vatican Council II interpreted with visible cases of LG 8, LG 14, and LG 16 etc.

The old theology says outside the Church there is no salvation and the New Theology of Pope Benedict and Pope Francis says outside the Church there is salvation. The New Theology is based upon there being known salvation outside the Church in the present times. This is factually false. But this is also the theology of Traditionis Custode which bishops have to follow.

So the two popes do not affirm the Athanasius Creed and those who want to offer/ attend the Latin Mass will also have to do the same.

But for there to be exceptions for  the Athanasius Creed, which says all must be members of the Catholic Church for salvation, the exceptions have to be explicit, they have to be objective. How can the Latin laity, for example at Dijon, France, judge the soul of another person? How can they know that some one will go to Heaven, or are in Heaven, with the baptism of desire?

So the interpretation of Vatican Council II in Traditionis Custode is wrong since invisible people cannot be visible in 2021. There are no explicit cases of Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire, is common sense.

But this false interpretation is a political issue for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) since the time of the Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) 1949(LOHO).

Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Adjunct Secretary of the CDF told Brother Andre Marie MICM, that there is a ‘nuanced’ version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). He meant that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, though hypothetical and invisible always, have to be projected as practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Di Noia told Brother Andre that there was no point in his coming to Rome to discuss this issue which had to be accepted by him. The CDF (Holy Office) probably said the same thing to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Without the CDF’s ‘nuanced understanding’ we are today back to the Old Theology. There are no known exceptions for Mark 16:16 (those who do not believe will be condemned).

There are no known exceptions for John 3:5 (all need the baptism of water for salvation).

There are no known exceptions for the Great Commission. It means that when we meet a non Catholic we know that he is oriented to the fires of Hell, without Catholic faith (AG 7). Everyone needs the baptism of water. This is the Law of God the Father.

So there is no more division on doctrine and theology. We avoid the New Theology. The Council Fathers, at least some of them, at Vatican Council II and Pope Paul VI, made a mistake. They thought that there were literal cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.This cannot be Magisterial. The same mistake in the LOHO also cannot be Magisterial.

 So when Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria indicate that there are literal and visible cases of LG 16 etc (International Theological Commission(ITC), Christianity and the World Religions) this cannot be Magisterial. This is an irrational interpretation in two papers of the ITC. Bishop Schneider interprets LG 14 without the ITC False Premise.

So we have two interpretations of Vatican Council I1) with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc, being visible cases and 2) invisible cases.

We have two different premises and so two different conclusions. There is the 1) nontraditional conclusion which is a rupture with EENS and 2) a traditional conclusion which is a continuity with Tradition and not a practical exception for EENS.

There are two interpretations of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II and also other Magisterial Documents ( Catechisms of Trent and Pius X, Nicene Creed, Mystici Corporis etc).The error is not restricted to only Vatican Council II

So Traditionis Custode with the irrational premise supports the irrational interpretation of the Creeds, Catechisms, EENS and Church Declarations ( Joint Declaration on Justification with Lutherans etc), Statements( Balamand) and Apostolic Letters and encyclicals.

Those bishops and laity who want the Latin Mass have to go along with this schism and first class heresy.-Lionel Andrades

Novena di Natale da Medjugorje : 8° GIORNO: Santo Rosario - 23 Dicembre ...

Bishops must correct the error in Traditionis Custode

 

The Apologist Joe Six-pack mentions the indefectibility of the pope and the Four Marks of the Church. But Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). 

There are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas explicit baptism of desire said Dr.Taylor Marshall. There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire agreed Bishop Athanasius Schneider. But for the LOHO, BOD is an exception for Feeneyite EENS.Not everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation says the LOHO placed in the Denzinger and referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16). This is the mistake the popes from Pius XII have made on extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS) an ex cathedra teaching.

Now we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II with the baptism of desire(LG 14) being an exception for EENS and so a visible case 2) and for Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall they are invisible and not literal cases.

It is a visible case for the popes from Paul VI and invisible for Schneider and Taylor.

The baptism of desire is invisible in 2021. Of course, this is obvious. It is common sense.

So we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II in the Church with the Four Marks (one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic).There is a baptism of desire visible and invisible, known and unknown, literal and not literal, explicit and implicit.

How can both positions be apostolic?

The indefectibility of the pope? Infallibility on the Nicene Creed and extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

The Athanasius Creed says everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church as a member and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 denies this and says not everyone needs to do so.

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.-Athanasius Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

 

Which of the two is correct? Which of the two is Magisterial? One has to be correct and the other wrong.

So one pope at some time was wrong.

Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode says that Vatican Council II is inspired by the Holy Spirit. He is referring to Vatican Council II with LG 14 (BOD) being visible.

Where are the cases of BOD in 2021? There are none.

For the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16^th century EENS had no exceptions. For Pope Francis and Pope Benedict EENS has exceptions.

For Cardinal Ladaria and the CDF invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance (CCC 847-848) are exceptions for EENS and the Athanasius Creed.

So what is invisible is projected as being visible and exceptions are created for EENS.

This is irrational and it contradicts the past Magisterium inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is Traditionis Custode of Pope Francis too.

 Pope Francis has contradicted the popes over the centuries on EENS.He has done it with a false premise (invisible people are visible).This cannot be Magisterial this is human error.

This is not Catholic it is political.

A bishop has a moral obligation to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and traditionally and not schismatically. The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Traditionis Custode is irrational, nontraditional and schismatic.

 Traditionis Custode contradicts the indefectibility and infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. It changes the interpretation of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with the use of a fake premise.

Bishops must correct the error of Traditionis Custode by affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal in 1580.

We Catholics have a right to follow the popes before the 1940’s who did not use the false premise for political reasons.-Lionel Andrades

CONFESSATEVI! Solo un cuore "pulito" può ricevere "grazie" e sa come aprirsi