Cardinal Luiz Ladaria could begin a dialogue with the
sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM and invite them into the Church, as he did for the
SSPX. Since with Vatican Council II (rational) there is no more reason to
remain in sedevacantism because of the Council.
When the Council is interpreted with the Rational
Premise it supports the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the
rest of Tradition.
Presently the SSPX, CMRI and others seem being outside the
Church, since the present two popes are interpreting Vatican Council II with a
False Premise and creating a false rupture with Tradition.The problem lies at Vatican. The MHFM and
CMRI affirm Tradition and reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the False
Premise, and yet they are made to seem, by the media etc, as being in schism etc.They are correct when they reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise. Howver there is a rational option now available for them.
But with Vatican Council II (rational) now available, it is the popes who seem to be in schism with the past Magisterium – and also
in a rupture with Vatican Council II (rational).
They contradict the past Magisterium on Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Catechism etc) but they also contradict Vatican Council II, rational.
There are no practical exceptions for the past
ecclesiocenterism in Vatican Council II when LG 8. LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS
22 etc are seen as being only theoretical and hypothetical cases in 2022. They
do not contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q, 27Q).So the CMRI and MHFM
can accept Vatican Council II (rational) once Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the
present two popes do the same.
When the popes interpret Vatican Council II with the
False Premise it is not magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective
mistake and also at the same time contradict the past Magisterium.Presently they are not Magisterial on Vatican Council II.How can grown up and responsible men use the Fake Premise ?
When they interpret Vatican Council II with the
Rational Premise, they will have corrected themselves, and then they will be in
harmony with the past Magisterium. There will be the hermeneutic of continuity
with Tradition.
In the diocese of Manchester, USA, the CDF and the
Judicial Vicar have placed sanctions on the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire
and have stopped the Latin Mass at their chapel. But if the Curia in the
diocese interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise they would have
to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as held by Brother Andre Marie
micm, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Similarly lay writers in New Hampshire Damien and
Simcha Fischer criticize the St. Benedict Center and the religious community
there because of their traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. However
if the Fischers interpreted Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, there
would be no practical exceptions mentioned in the Council-text for EENS, according to the missionaries in the 16th century. They could go over to the SBC in
Richmond, New Hampshire and discuss how they have so much in common in theology
and doctrine.
Similarly if Fr. Georges de Laire the Judicial Vicar
in the diocese of Manchester, who has placed sanctions on the SBC, would
interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, he would be affirming
EENS like Brother Andre Marie micm, and would be eligible for the same
sanctions. It would be the same with Cardinal Luiz Ladaria. With the
Rational Premise he would be a missionary like the Jesuits in the Middle Ages,
who affirmed traditional ecclesiocentrism. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
