Archbishop Roche is choosing the hermenetic of rupture with tradition and apostolic times.He has altered the faith.

 

DECEMBER 24, 2021

Archbishop Roche is choosing the hermenetic of rupture with tradition and apostolic times.He has altered the faith.

 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 Liturgical Possibilities Are in Place’

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

,

Like a switch - we can turn the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition on or off.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has pressed the button. He says there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14). He has kept the switch on. Vatican Council II has a continuity with Tradition.

Pope Francis' New Theology keeps the switch off. Lumen Gentium 14 (baptism of desire) refers to known and visible non Catholics. He infers that invisible people are visible for him and are examples of salvation outside the Church. So he concludes that EENS and the Syllabus of Errors are obsolete. There is a cut off with the past.

For me Unitatis Redintigratio (imperfect communion with the Church) refers to only a hypothetical case. So UR (Decree on Ecumenism) nowhere contradicts the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma EENS. I have kept the line open with Tradition. Cardinal Walter Kasper's New Ecumenism is based upon UR 3 being an exception for the Syllabus and EENS. He has turned the switch off, breaking the connection with Sacred Tradition and the past exclusivist ecumenism. The premise was his handle Archbishop Roche has used the false premise and has broken faithfulness to tradition received from apostolic times. He has chosen to keep 'the switch' off and has altered the faith and interrupted the living tradition.-Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 24, 2021

The interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Cardinal Godfried Daneels and Roberto dei Mattei is finished. This interpretation of Vatican Council II is as false as Pope Benedict’s, who does not use the Rational Premise.

 

The interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Cardinal Godfried Daneels and Roberto dei Mattei is finished. This interpretation of Vatican Council II is as false as Pope Benedict’s, who does not use the Rational Premise.

Pope Benedict permitted the Latin Mass since he wanted Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX to come into the Church and accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise. He has always defended the interpretation of the Council with the False Premise creating a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

The liberals are also afraid of interpreting Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. They know that pretending that they are on the moral high ground because of Vatican Council II, is over. They can no more claim that the traditionalists are in schism for not accepting Vatican Council II. Instead it is now the conservatives who can say that the liberals are in schism for not affirming Vatican Council II ( rational).If they affirm Vatican Council II with the rational premise they could be accused of being extremists and if they do not schismatics.

The bottom line is that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II always refer to hypothetical cases. How can invisible people be visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2021? How can LG 8 etc be exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation?

So we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II1) with LG 8 invisible and 2) with LG 8 etc being visible.

Pope Francis and Traditionis Custode choose the irrational option. So does Cardinal Daneels and Roberto dei Mattei.

So the division – the break with Tradition, does not come with the liturgy but with the use of the False or Rational Premise. This is irrespective if you go for Holy Mass in Latin or Greek or if it is the Ambrosian, Syro Malabar or Melkite rite. It is the premise which decides if you are liberal or orthodox.

If Cardinal Daneels chooses to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise then he could be considered conservative. While Roberto dei Mattei with the False Premise would still be rejecting extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions, the Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions and the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions. There would be exceptions for him since he would be using the divisive New Theology which is created with the False Premise.

So there are two important points here.1) We have to de-condition ourselves from the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which used the Fake Premise and projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for traditional EENS( with no exceptions) and 2) we have to stop thinking that the division in the Church comes with the liturgy.

If there is a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II at the Novus Ordo or Latin Mass, then the catechesis and homilies can be exclusivist and traditional.

The hermeneutic of rupture or continuity with Tradition comes with the Irrational or Rational Premise in the interpretation of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.-Lionel Andrades