Saturday, April 30, 2022
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a False Premise to create a break with the Syllabus of Errors. This is being dishonest. He needs to correct the mistake
Pope Francis interprets
Vatican Council II with the False Premise and not the Rational Premise. This is
dishonest.
By confusing what is invisible as being visible: the common irrationality, he interprets the Council-text. Then he produces an artificial break with Tradition. This was also done by Pope Benedict. His bad theology depended upon the False Premise. The result was modernism and liberalism, which was approved by the Left.
CATHOLICS DO NOT KNOW THEOLOGY
But the rank and file
Catholic who do not know this deceptive theology, also did not know the
Catholic Faith. Catholics were told that the Church had changed its teachings
on Vatican Council II. This was not true. They were told that the Church no
more teaches the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation (extra
ecclesiam nulla salus).The dogmas have been put aside with Vatican Council II.
Bishops and theologians supported the liberalism. They said that the Syllabus
of Errors of Pope Pius IX was obsolete. This was the official narrative of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith (CDF), Vatican. But now it is known that only with the False Premise is
there a break with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Now we have a
breakthrough, a return to the past ecclesiology. We have identified the False
Premise. So now it is simple and easy to come back to the past
ecclesiocentrism.
WE CAN CREATE THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION
The False Premise is created
by confusing what is invisible as being visible. This is a fact. It is now a
given. So we can, at will, choose the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with
Tradition. We do not have to listen to the archbishops of the CDF.
The Rational Premise
which was used by the popes and saints over the centuries, and which produced
the old theology, sees invisible cases as being invisible only.
The popes from Paul VI
however have been using the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally.
They could have chosen the Rational Premise and supported Catholic Tradition.
There would be no development of doctrine.
THE COUNCIL IS ALWAYS REFERRING TO HYPOTHETICAL CASES ONLY, ALWAYS
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR
3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, always refers to hypothetical and
speculative cases only. Always. So the Council is always referring to invisible
and theoretical cases only.
There are no practical
examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church. If someone is saved as such
it would only be known to God.
So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,
UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma
EENS in 2022.There are no practical examples of salvation outside the Catholic
Church.
FALSE PREMISE USED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
However in two papers, of the International Theological Commission, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj., projected Lumen Gentium 16 etc as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. 2
They used the False Premise. LG 16 (invincible ignorance) was seen as referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This was the big one! From here
they took off with their New Theology! The SSPX had to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise, for canonical recognition. It was a doctrinal-must said Pope Benedict. 1
They were drawing upon
the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). The LOHO was referenced
in Vatican Council II with its objective mistake. It was also inserted in the
Denzinger, with the error.
THE COUNCIL FATHERS USED THE FALSE PREMISE
The Council Fathers,
Rahner, Ratzinger, Cushing etc, were using the False Premise, officially and in
public. Since the mistake was not corrected by Pope Pius XII in the LOHO. The
LOHO was issued some time after the creation of Israel as a state.
They were all
interpreting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as
referring to physically visible cases in the present times. But the baptism of
desire always refers to an unknown and hypothetical case. The norm for salvation
is faith and the baptism of water (AG 7, LG 14).It is not a visible case of the
baptism of desire. We cannot see or meet any one saved with the baptism of
desire, invincible ignorance or baptism of blood, without the baptism of water.
But it was inferred by
the popes that we humans could see these cases in real life and this was called
magisterial.
It was only because they were seen as being physically visible that they could be projected as being exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
No one saw a
St.Emerentiana in Heaven. Yes she is a saint but no one on earth could claim
that she was a practical exception for the dogma EENS. We do not know of anyone
who will go to Heaven today like Dismas the Good Thief.
So with this confusion
between what is invisible and visible, the ecclesiastics could reject the past
ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.
ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE THERE COULD BE A NEW ECUMENISM
It was only with there
being known salvation outside the Church that there could be a New Ecumenism,
since EENS was made obsolete and there was an ecumenism of return to the
Catholic Church.
Only with there being
physically visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church that there
could be a New Ecclesiology.
Since there was allegedly
known non Catholics saved outside the Church, traditional Mission, based upon
exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was rejected. Pope Benedict
indicated that Vatican Council II said that there was known salvation outside
the Church ( Avvenire). So he asked why should there be mission. Similarly the
popes no more proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics.
Vatican Council II interpreted by confusing what is invisible as being visible,
produces ‘practical exceptions’ for EENS. It is EENS which is the theological
basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all
political legislation (Quas Primas).
But Cardinal Muller as
the Prefect of the CDF did not celebrate an anniversary, a milestone for the
Syllabus of Errors. Since he rejects the Syllabus with Vatican Council II
interpreted with the False Premise.It was the same with Pope Benedict.
JESUITS DO NOT CELEBRATE ST.FRANCIS XAVIER'S 400TH ANNIVERSARY
Similarly the Jesuits did not celebrate the 400th anniversary of the canonisation of St. Francis Xavier, since there are
practical exceptions for Xavier’s concept of EENS.
Without confusing what
is invisible as being visible Pope Francis would have to affirm the strict
interpretation of EENS, like the St. Benedict Centers in the USA and the
founders of the Jesuit community.
CDF DEMANDS USE OF THE FALSE PREMISE
DISHONEST INTERPRETATION BY THE CDF
The Archbishop-Secretaries of the CDF would have to use the False Premise to be modernist, heretical and schismatic. Since only with the False Premise they do not have to affirm the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed.
The Jesuits expelled Fr.
Leonard Feeney since he would not interpret the baptism of desire etc with the
False Premise and create practical exceptions for traditional EENS. Boston
College also expelled Catholic professors, only because they would not confuse
invisible cases as being visible. Pope Francis is a Jesuit and an apology is
due.
In the Boston Heresy case it was Archbishop Richard Cushing who was using the False Premise and who was in heresy and schism and not Fr. Leonard Feeney. Today Cardinal Sean O’Malley the Archbishop of Boston still uses the False Premise to interpret Magisterial Documents.
The use of the False Premise i.e. confusing what is invisible as being visible and then inferring that there are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc, is dishonest. -Lionel Andrades
1
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial. Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
Posts
