The Rorate Caeili, Roberto dei Mattei, Don Pietro Leone interpretation of the Council is political. It supports the Left by creating alleged exceptions ( LG 8,14,16 etc) for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.

 

Rorate Caeili still interprets Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise to please the Left.Irrespective of what is said in this report 1 if the Council is interpreted with the Rational Premise it will be support Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed. The Council would be traditional.This would be the only ethical interpretation of the Council. The Rorate Caeili, Roberto dei Mattei, Don Pietro Leone interpretation of the Council is political. It supports the Left by creating alleged exceptions ( LG 8,14,16 etc) for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Here we have supports of the Latin Mass  not supporting a Tradition in harmony with Vatican Council, interpreted rationally.They want to interpret the Creeds and old Catechisms with the False Premise.  -Lionel Andrades

1

The Council and the Eclipse of God by Don Pietro Leone: CHAPTER 10 (Part 6a.) III. FEATURES OF THE TEXTS INFLUENTIAL FOR PROMOTING THE COUNCIL’s WORK: 1. Authority; 2.Appeal to Charismatic Inspiration; 3. Appeal to the Senses

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-by-don_30.html

______________________

JUNE 17, 2013

Modernism at Rorate Caeili

Rorate Caeili has posted a passage written by Mons. Fenton which mentions implicit desire;being saved with an unconscious desire. There are no explanations or qualifications from the traditionalist website. The position of Rorate Caeili on this issue is otherwise a modernist one.It was the common mistake of Mons. Fenton who did not realize that we could hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on salvation along with the possibility of being saved with implicit desire.One could eat ones cake, in this case, and also have it. It's not an either 'this' or 'that' position.

Rorate Caeili is making the Richard Cushing Error and their interpretation of Vatican Council II is also otherwise full of the Richard Cushing Confusion. Visible-to-us implicit desire is an irrationality. Deadwood. It is useful for causing ambiguity.This is the stuff of modernism which Rorate Caeili criticizes.

In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII does not state that those saved with an unconscious desire are physically visible to us.Neither does he claim that these cases are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation. If we cannot see these cases and if we cannot know them personally, how can Rorate Caeili assume that they are exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation?

In the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, there are no known exceptions to the defined dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.

Since it is possible to be saved with implicit desire within the Mystical Body of Christ it does not mean that we can name any such case or count the number of persons saved with an unconscious desire. This is known only to God. So the possibility is not a known reality.It is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, the popes, the saints and Vatican Council II.

Rorate Caeili is implying, that there is a known exception.The dogma has known exceptions ?!This is modernism.A person can be saved with implicit desire but it is not a known exception.One can affirm implicit desire without considering it an exception.On this issue Rorate Caeili and Cardinal Walter Kaspar are making the same error. Like the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing and the liberals, Rorate is repeating this propaganda irrespective of tradition and being informed. This was the Cushing Prerogative.

Like Cardinal Richard Cushing the editor of Rorate Caeili is maintaining a lie ( visible implicit desire/Richard Cushing Error) and not correcting the confusion and propaganda on this issue which is there in the secular media, in general.-Lionel Andrades

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.it/2013/06/mystici-corporis-at-70-i-true-church-of.html

Richard Cushing Error is assuming that we can physically see the dead now saved in Heaven and then further assuming that these cases visible to us and known personally to us, are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).

Richard Cushing Confusion is the general interpretation of Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing Error.It is the use of an irrelevant statement, to the main text or passage in a Council text,which causes ambiguity. It is mixing up a possibility with a known reality.This leads to confusion in Council texts with dual statements.

Deadwood Statements are used in Vatican Council II to cause the Richard Cushing Confusion. They mix up what is implicit, dejure and theoretical. with a statement referring to something, which is explicit, de facto and practical.Usually hypotehetical statements are assumed to be known cases in the present times.

Cushing Prerogative refers to the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing  using his power  to suppress the truth  and Fr.Leonard Feeney and also not issue a correction when the Boston secular newspapers implied there were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation. The Archbishop never lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney even though the priest was nover in heresy and was not required to recant his postion when the excommunication was finally lifted.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2022

When Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8 etc being only hypothetical and speculative cases in 2022 they become traditionalists

 SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II-OBSOLETE

   This 1  is another subjective interpretation of Vatican Council II which is irrelevant since when the Council is interpreted with the Rational Premise it is ecclesiocentric and orthodox. There is a radical change.

I interpret the Council with the Rational Premise so LG 8,14,15 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2022.This is the big difference between me and Rorate Caeili, Roberto dei Mattei and Peter Kwasniewski. For them LG 8 etc. contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. 

So they imply that LG 8 etc. are objective cases in the present times. They are known non Catholics saved outside the Church without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. So the Syllabus of Errors has become obsolete with Vatican Council II, with visible cases of LG 8 etc.

INVISIBLE PEOPLE CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE EXCEPTIONS FOR FEENEYITE EENS

They would have to be visible cases for them to be practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. Invisible people, who are not there on earth, cannot be known examples of salvation outside the Church this year.

So the correspondents of the website Rorate Caeili, like the popes from Paul VI to Francis, interpret LG 8 etc. as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church while for me they are only hypothetical cases. This is common knowledge. So there 

are numerous people who agree with me. I have quoted some of the prominent ones on my blog. They say that there are no cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance etc. in our reality.

IRRELEVANT INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

So Rorate Caeili and Don Pietro Leone are producing this obsolete series on Vatican Council II. It is now irrelevant.Vatican Council II is traditional. This is the rational and ethical option.It is the only option for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.

When they interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8 etc being only hypothetical and speculative cases in 2022 they become traditionalists. -Lionel Andrades

1

60 years of Vatican II - 'THE COUNCIL AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD' by Don Pietro Leone - CHAPTER 10 - part 4 - 'THE CAUSES OF COUNCIL TEACHING: D. Psychology

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/10/60-years-of-vatican-ii-council-and_18.html#more

Conclusion to Section I

 

We have investigated the source of the false principle of antirealist subjectivism in Modern Philosophy; in Modern Theology; in that religion which we have termed Gnosis; and finally in its ontological foundation in the psychology of Fallen Nature.

 

Reflection on this false principle shows us that the philosophy, theology, the religion and the ethics that they inform - first Gnosis and then all the other false religions that it was to engender - are in fact all impostures.

          

* For a philosophy to be antirealist, for it to doubt or to deny Being, means that it is not a philosophy at all, but an anti-philosophy;

-          * For a theology to be antirealist, for it to doubt or to deny God, means that it is not a theology at all, but an anti-theology;

-          * For a religion to be antirealist, for it to repudiate God, means that it is not a religion at all, but an anti-religion; for it to advocate egoism as its ethics means that it is does not comprise a system of morality but a system of anti-morality.

 

A philosopher that can tell us nothing about reality, a theologian that can tell us nothing about God, is like a geographer that can tell us nothing about the world or a chemist that can tell us nothing about chemicals; the proponent of a religion that can tell us nothing about God, about how to relate to Him, and how to live, is like a doctor that can tell us nothing about illness or health.

 

But these systems of thought and action are not only impostures but also mortiferous, since a philosophy and a morality that are not about reality, a theology and a religion that are not about God can offer us no guidance about how to live, but only darkness or false light that will make us lose the way or lead us astray. The proponents of such systems are like undertakers disguised as doctors working at the service not of life but of death [6].

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/10/60-years-of-vatican-ii-council-and_18.html#mo

______________________________________________

OCTOBER 15, 2022

Rorate Caeili supports gnosis with their expedient interpretation of Vatican Council II irrationally

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/10/rorate-caeili-supports-gnosis-with.html

OCTOBER 14, 2022

This is modernism with alleged traditionalists rejecting Tradition to be politically correct with the Left. Mattei and Rorate Caeili are supporting the globalists in exchange for approval from the Left

OCTOBER 14, 2022

From Rorate Caeili we have another edition of Vatican Council II with the False Premise. It has to be modernist. Obviously if the Premise is False the Inference and Conclusion has to be False.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/10/from-rorate-caeili-we-have-another.htmlhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/10/this-is-modernism-with-alleged.html

OCTOBER 14, 2022

Roberto dei Mattei and Rorate Caeli do not interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise since then it would be a threat to their media

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/10/roberto-dei-mattei-and-rorate-caeli-do.html

OCTOBER 9, 2022

After reading this article on Rorate Caeili know that the Council is today being interpreted as a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. This is possible without using the Irrational Premise of Don Pietro Leone and Rorate Caeili.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/10/after-reading-this-article-on-rorate.html

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2013

Rorate censorship being maintained by the Left

Rorate Caeili cannot post reports on the International Theological Commission (ITC) error regarding the Fr.Leonard Feeney case, since Rorate is being threathened by Talmud Rabbis besides others.

Recently Rorate Caili mentioned that their website  is being monitored by those who oppose them.
Rorate had placed a few reports on the ITC's blatant error but subsequent reports were pulled down.The reports which were posted on the ITC were widely read but ran afoul of the anti-Semitism, racist and other leftists laws which are vague and can be used against just anything.So even the files containing these ITC reports on Rorate Caeili  have been removed.In general one can access old posts on Rorate Caeili but there is a blank on the ITC reports which were posted and maintained for a few days on Rorate Caeili.
Here are the ITC reports some of which were available on Rorate Caeili and which are now no more accessible.(1).

Why were they removed ? The reports were on theology. Harmless ?

Over some last 60 years there has been a massive and organized campaign by the Jewish Left media, to project a theological error, onto the Catholic Church and make it seem, as if this was a teaching in some Magisterial text and especially in Vatican Council II.The present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J who was the former President of the ITC, also fell for this ruse.He incorporated the factual error in two of the ITC papers (2) and Pope Benedict XVI allowed it to pass.

The ITC is saying something ridiculous and which is not objectively verificalble.This is the basis for the 'new theology'.It is at the centre of the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II.Pull this plug out and the ITC will be at sea, millions of educated Catholics and non Catholics will have a new interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So now there is a censorship on the Internet,with accompanying threats of black listing persons and organisations, if anyone says 'the dead in heaven are not physically visible to us for them to be exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions and salvation'.Something so innocent, hardly noticeable and taken for granted, has to be pulled down by Rorate Caeili.

If this truth comes out in the open imagine the dismay among the Left, scores of years of false propaganda would go down the drain pipe. Wasted!

While Rorate Caeili is being threathended with the stick unfortunately there seems no integrity at the CDF. They know they have made an error,they should announce it in public and correct it.They will not.

Rorate Caeili on the other hand is silent since it is protecting its website, and editors from those who do not want an expose.

Recently Fr.Jonathan Morris of the Archdiocese of New York unknowingly stepped on this taboo subject when, Michael Voris asked him to name someone who did not need to enter the Church for salvation. Who was the dead person now in Heaven, whom Fr.Jonathan Morris could see saved in invincible ignorance etc ? So how could they be exceptions to the traditoonal teaching on other religions and salvaton, if they are not visible to him ?

If there are no known exceptions then Vatican Council II(AG 7) is traditional and so is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846,845).

The CDF Archbishops, Gerhard Muller and Augustine Di Noia, who want the Society of St.Pius (SSPX) to accept the Jewish Left demands, for canonical status in the Catholic Church, will not want to discuss this issue.-Lionel Andrades

1.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION USES PREMISE THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT : LIMBO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_29.html

The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commissions.html

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html

VATICAN COUNCIL II REJECTS THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vatican-council-ii-rejects-theology-of.html

Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/secretary-of-international-theological.html#links

2.

.(Christianity and the World Religions 1997 and The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without being baptised Baptism).

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2014

A CALL TO UNITY MUST BE BASED ON DOCTRINE

 

A call to Catholics for unity must be based on Catholic doctrine.

Rorate Caeili is not in unity with the Catholic Church.There cannot be a call to unity based on heresy.

 

 

1. For Rorate Caeili Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, since Rorate correspondents consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as being visible to them, explicit on earth and Heaven. It is true the Council then would contradict the dogma.The Council would contradict the dogma when this irrational premise is used! Any Church document would contradict Tradition when this irrational premise is used.

So it is not Catholic doctrine to say that we can see the dead in Heaven and also on earth who are known, visible exceptions to Tradition. They would have to be visible to Rorate Caeili correspondents for them to be exceptions to traditional teaching and Rorate implies they are visible.

 

2.If Rorate Caeili would say Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, it means Rorate correspondnents consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as being invisible to them on earth.They are hypothetical cases, possibilities, known only to God. Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma.The Council would not contradict the dogma when the irrational premise is not used!

Ad Gentes 7 affirms the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

So Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney.

There is no salvation outside the Church, known to Rorate correspondents in 2014. Neither does Vatican Council II say that the dead  on earth now saved in Heaven are visible to us.

Rorate Caeili is not willing like many Traditionalists to affirm this teaching or even to discuss it.-Lionel Andrades

January 20, 2014
More nonsense on Rorate Caeili

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/more-nonsense-on-rorate-caeili.html

SATURDAY, APRIL 10, 2021

Difference in the concept of The Great Commission between Rorate Caeili and myself

 Easter Friday: The Great Commission

Teaching, Faith, Commandment: Truth is at the center of the Mission of the Church to all the Peoples of the world. May it begin once again once this Babylonian Exile started with Vatican II is at last put to an end. -Rorate Caeili, webblog

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/04/easter-friday-great-commission.html#more

Truth ? Here is the difference between New Catholic at the webblogRorate Caeili and myself.

Lionel: 

There are no physically visible non Catholics in 2021 who are saved outside the Church. We cannot see or meet them in the flesh. If they existed they would only be known to God. I am speaking in the sense of physics, moving bodies, stationary bodies, momentum, Newton's laws of gravitation etc.

At Newton's level of matter there are no stationary bodies, human beings saved outside the Catholic Church with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or the baptism of blood. According to the laws of physics, space, mass, light etc,  we cannot see a non Catholic saved outside the Catholic Church.

New Catholic, Rorate Caeili

There are physically visible non Catholics in 2021 who are saved outside the Church. We can see or meet them in the flesh. They are known not only to God but also human beings. He is referring to physics, moving bodies, stationary bodies, momentum, Newton's laws of gravitation etc.so for New Catholic, and the Lefebvrists, the baptism of desire and inincible ignorance are practical exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

___________________________________

THERE CAN BE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE APOSTLES CREED AND THE NICENE CREED.His and mine. 

How do you interpret the Apostles Creed at Holy Mass ?

There are two options, one rational and the other irrational, one traditional and the other non traditional, one heretical and the other non heretical, one schismatic and the other not a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Most Catholics choose the irrational version which is not prohibited by the popes, cardinals and bishops.

" I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" - Apostles Creed

New Catholic, Rorate Caeili 

1. Do you say in church, at Holy Mass when the Creed is prayed, " I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" and mean that the Holy Spirit guides the Church today to teach that outside the Catholic Church there is salvation, known salvation, there are visible non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water and so there is no communion with the saints on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed etc  ? 

Or,

Lionel:

2. Do you say in church at Mass , "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" and then mean that the Holy Spirit guides the Church today to teach that outside the Church there is no known salvation, there are no physically visible non Catholics in 2021 saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and so there is  communion with the saints - Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Catherine of Siena, Maximillian Kolbe etc - on extra ecclesiam nulla salus( with no exceptions, like in the 16th century) the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic for salvation, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q, 27Q), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return), Quas Primas o Pope Pius XI on the Proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation etc ?

THERE ARE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE NICENE CREED. WHICH ONE IS YOURS ?

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins - Nicene Creed

Lionel : 

1. There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, it is the baptism of water. It is physically visible and repeatable.

Or.

New Catholic, Rorate Caeili

2.There are more than three baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are known baptisms, personally visible. They are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. They exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and so are practical exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as explained in the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It was referenced also in Vatican Council II(Lumen Gentium 16).

There are can be two interpretations of the Great Commission.

Lionel:

We cannot affirm mentally that the catechumen who desires the baptism of water, died before receiving it, went to Heaven is a known case. We cannot act as if this imaginary personal is a known case in the past or present.

We cannot say the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and also not say that none of them said that these cases were explicit and objective. So there are exceptions to the Great Commission in their words and actions. There are exceptions also to all needing the baptism of water for salvation according to the Bible ( John 2:5).So in the Great Commission it is said that all need to enter the Church and it is also said that there are exceptions.This is false. There are no known exceptions to the Great Commission.

New Catholic, Rorate Caeili

There are known exceptions to the Great Commission.Theologically there are people who do not need Christ.Since there is salvation outside the Church.Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected. There is salvation outside the Church since the baptism of desire (BOD)  and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to physically known cases instead of invisible persons in our reality.

Yes this is double speak.This is also the double speak of the SSPX and the sedevacantists. 

Their new theology says every one needs to enter the Church but some do not.

New Catholic, Rorate Caeili

 We also can see the double speak in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1257). It says all need the baptism of water for salvation( defacto) but some do not.Why? Since God is not limited to the Sacraments.This interpretation contradicts Tradition and other Catechisms.The false premise is used.

Lionel:

But 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' is a reference to a hypothetical state. It is not defacto known in personal cases. However the confusion between what is visible and invisible, objective and hypothetical, explicit and implicit, is useful for double speak. Even the traditionalists and sedevacantists  support this confusion.For me there is no contradiction in CCC 1257. It does not contradict the dogma EENS since God is not limited to the Sacraments refers to a hypothetical and physically invisible case.

 New Catholic, Rorate Caeili

For the Lefebvrists Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) refers to a practical exception to 16th century EENS.They are not Feeneyites. So it is implied that this is a reference to a known person, a visible case in Newton's time and space.It is an exception to EENS and the rest of Tradition.This is how Don Pietro Leone on Rorate Caeili also reasons and he is writing a book on Vatican Council II in which he will repeat this error.

Lionel:

For me LG 16 is always a hypothetical case and so does not contradict Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).

So we have two interpretations of the Great Commission, the Creeds, the Catechisms and Vatican Council II.

What is truth?

-Lionel Andrades

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021

Rorate Caeili and Don Pietro Leone choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then they reject the non traditional conclusion,even after being informed.

 Rorate Caeili and Don Pietro Leone choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then they reject the non traditional conclusion,even after being informed.They do not choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc rationally and then affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara, Taylor Marshall and Peter Kwasniewski. -Lionel Andrades

JUNE 1, 2021

Don Pietro Leone's reports on Vatican Council II posted by Rorate Caeili please the Left

It is as if the weblog Rorate Caeli promotes Don Pietro Leone's reports on Vatican Council II because they are a rupture with Tradition(EENS) to show the liberals and the Left that he is one of them. If Vatican Council II was interpreted without the fake premise and in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, they would object.Now they appreciate the posts on Rorate Caeili showing, as the liberal popes believed,that the Council is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Today so many Catholics still wrongly believe that the Council is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

For the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center, Stll River, MA, USA, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.So they have negated Feeneyite EENS; EENS with no known exceptions, and so have been granted canonical recognition by Bishop Robert McMmanus in the diocese of Worcester, USA.They interpret the Council with the fake premise, like all the religious communities in the diocese. So the common liberalism in the diocese of Worcester comes with the fake premise.It does not depend upon the liturgy.-Lionel Andrades

MAY 30, 2021

Rorate Caeili/Don Pietro Leone are actually promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc with the false premise instead of without it. Of course the conclusion has to be non traditional and they know it

 Rorate Caeili/Don Pietro Leone are actually promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc with the false premise instead of without it. Of course the conclusion has to be non traditional and they know it. -Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/rorate-caeilidon-pietro-leone-are.html

__________________________________

MAY 28, 2021

Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?

 

THE COUNCIL AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD - PART X - by Don Pietro Leone : THE CHURCH AND THE NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-part-x.html

Don Pietro Leone writing on Vatican Council II and other religions on the web blog Rorate Caeili cites Unitatis Redintigratio,the Decree on Ecumenism, as if they are non hypothetical and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 1965-2021.This is an error in reasoning. His premise is false. So his conclusion has to be non traditional.

A.     Ecumenism in Theory

 

 

Here we consider the ecclesiological status that the Council accords to non-Catholic Christians.

 

     i) ‘…many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Catholic Church’s] visible confines.’ (Lumen Gentium 8);

 

    ii) ‘all that have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ.’(Unitatis Redintegratio 3);

 

    iii) ‘… very many… elements… which go to build up and give life to the church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity; with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.’ (ibid);

 

    iv) ‘… the separated churches and  communities as such… have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery if salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation…’ (UR 3);

 

    v) [The non-Catholics are]‘brothers and sisters’ … in… ‘imperfect communion with the Catholic Church’… ‘separated brothers and sisters’ (UR 3); 

 

    vi) Amongst the non-Catholic Christians there is ‘a true union in the Holy Spirit’… ‘and He has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood’ (LG 15).

For me the theoretical and speculative lines above (in green) from Unitatis Redintigratio 3 or Lumen Gentium 8 and 15 which he has quoted was a weak attempt by some of the Council Fathers, to eliminate the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

Why does Leone still have to interpret Vatican Council II with the confusion of the liberals and Lefebvrists ?

So what if Yves Congar and the others were present at Vatican Council II ? If UR 3 and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases in our reality, then they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

But for Leone they are exceptions.Since he has confused UR 3, LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Real people saved without faith and baptism and who are known to us.This is irrational. There are no such known people. If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.Yet for Leone Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.

Why don’t the Lefebvrists, like Leone, affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and not the liberal version, which projects UR 3,LG 8 as being practical exceptions to Tradition in general and exclusive salvation in particular ?.

There are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church n 1965-2021 and so there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any mentioned in Vatican Council II, unless of course a false premise continues to be employed.

Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?

Rorate Caeili and Don Leone are really promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They please the Masons who want the Council to be interpreted as a rupture with Catholic Tradition.It is as if Rorate Caeili has to interpet UR 3 as a rupture with an ecumenism of return or the retired Jewish Left profesor at the Angelicum, Rome, will object once again.

The big names at Vatican Council II, who thought they could get rid of the dogma EENS, by employing the error in the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949, which was overlooked by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII,did not know that there was a built in error.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to objective cases in our time and space.So they never ever were exceptions to EENS or the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-use-false-premise.html

_________________________________________