The popes did not tell the traditionalists that Vatican Council II was Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when it is interpreted with the Rational Premise. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not informed. There is no denial from Andrea Torneilli or Fr.Antonio Spadaro sj.
No one told Lefebvre that if he interpreted Lumen Gentium (8, 14 and 16) as being only hypothetical in the present times, there would be the hermeneutic of continuity with the past Magisterium.
They could not tell him to interpret the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) rationally. This would put an end to the New Theology. The liberalism which divides the Church comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO).
How can Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, be Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II with a False Premise?.Only the Rational Premise comes from the Holy Spirit.
Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode wants the Church to interpret Vatican Council II with the wrong premise. How can bishops in conscience go along with it?
Without the false premise the present two popes would emerge conservative. They would be supporting extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and the non separation of the Catholic Church and the Catholic State. This comes with the old theology.
The pope is in schism when he uses the common False Premise to re-interpret Vatican Council II (LG 14 etc).This happens with the False Premise irrespective of who uses it.
Pope Francis does not interpret Lumen Gentium 14 (baptism of desire) like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall. His interpretation of Vatican Council II is different from that of Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson.
How can Cardinal Luiz Ladaria be inspired by the Holy Spirit when he interprets Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a False and not Rational Premise?
Pope Benedict was not Magisterial. He asked the Society of St.Pius X to accept Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise, for canonical recognition. If the SSPX did agree they would be dishonest. The Fake Premise produces schism with the pre-1940s Magisterium. When the meanings of the Creeds are changed it is first class heresy.
Rahner and Ratzinger were not Magisterial when they accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) that used the False Premise. The LOHO interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance irrationally. LOHO confused what is invisible as being visible. Hundreds of thousands of books on Vatican Council II are now obsolete. They ignored the factual error in the LOHO.
It was the same with two theological papers of the International Theological Commission Christianity and the World Religions (1996) and The Hope of Salvation of Infants who die without baptism (2006).They were published with the False Premise and contradict the Athanasius Creed which does not mention any exceptions for exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Like LOHO even Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus, are not ecclesiocentric.They have good things in them but the error cannot be Magisterial.
APPEAL TO GOVERNMENTS AND MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
An appeal must be made, I have mentioned in a previous blog post, to individual governments and especially their Ministry of Education to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. This must be the norm in educational institutions etc.
Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custode, for example, should only be interpreted with generally acceptable reasoning. Otherwise it would be dishonest and unethical. Students and teachers must only interpret LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as referring to hypothetical and invisible cases in the present times ( 1965-2022).They cannot be anything else in our human reality. So they are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church, this year. They are not personally known people, friends and relatives, saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.EDUCATION MINISTRIES MUST BE RATIONAL
The Education Ministries must clarify the obvious i.e. we cannot meet or see any one saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. We cannot physically see someone saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance and without Catholic faith, which is now in Heaven. We cannot see people saved with the baptism of desire in Heaven and also on earth at the same time. No one saw a saint or martyr in Heaven without the baptism of water.
This is common knowledge based upon Aristotle’s logic and Newton’s concept of the universe and the popes and cardinals must be asked to confirm it before the people.
BISHOPS ARE INTERPRETING TRADITIONIS CUSTODE IRRATIONALLY
Presently there is confusion with Traditionis Custode. Bishops interpret LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR3,NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. So they imply that LG 8 etc refer to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church (they would have to be known to be exceptions).They suggest that there are visible cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) and the baptism of desire (LG 14).Then they infer that there are practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).
They are telling the world invisible people are visible. This is not our human reality. Invisible people cannot be visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church last year or this year.
This is irrational and even non Catholics, including professors and politicians, are repeating this error at secular institutions.
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN FRANCE AND GERMANY COULD CLARIFY
The Federal Ministry of Education in Germany and France, for example, must show the Catholic bishops and people at large that LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases in our reality, always. So always they are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Theoretically we can assume with good will that there could be non Catholics saved outside the Church, if God wills it. But the norm for salvation, practically, is faith and the baptism of water, in the Catholic Church. Practically we humans cannot see any exceptions.
THIS IS A SECULAR ISSUE
This is a secular issue when invisible people are assumed to be physically visible and new philosophies and a theology is created based upon this objective error. The premise is irrational for everyone, irrespective of his religion or education.
A person could be free to believe what he wants but the government must not interpret Vatican Council II irrationally by confusing what is invisible as being visible and hypothetical as being objective and then project this as being socially acceptable.
From the Catholic perspective, it is Magisterial when a Catholic accepts the past Magisterium and he accepts the present pope in general and only, when the present two popes interpret Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Catechisms etc) with a rational premise.
A pope is not Magisterial when he interprets Church Documents with a False Premise and knows that there will be a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit.The present popes do now meet the Magisrterial-criteria with 1) Vatican Council II interpreted with the common False Premise, 2) the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 accepted with the same misunderstanding on the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, 3) the Athanasius Creed rejected with alleged visible cases of the baptism of desire and 4) the Nicene and Apostles Cree re-interpreted with the same factual error.
However from the secular point of view an objective and factual error must not be accepted in the schools, universities etc.
-Lionel Andrades
Fr.Antonio Spadero sj, Director Civilta Cattolica, chooses to interpret the Council as a break with Tradition by using a False Premise : he could re-interpret Traditionis Custode rationally too
Sister Maria Philomena MICM, Director, St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom interprets Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise but Fr.Antonio Spadero sj, Director Civilta Cattolica, chooses to interpret the Council as a break with Tradition by using a False Premise.This is political. There is no denial from him. It was the same wth Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger who did not use the Rataional Premise to interpret Vatican Council. They also did not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that he could interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. Instead they excommuniated him.
Now Pope Francis has issued Traditionis Custode in which he interprets Vatican Council II with the same Irrational Premise creating a False Break with the theology of the pre-1962 Roman Missal. If Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise, as does Sister Maria Philomena of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then the interpretation of the Council changes in Traditionis Custode.
Fr. Spadero and the Jesuits would be obliged to choose the Rational Premise.So bishops would only approve the Latin Mass for those priests and lay people who accept Vatican Council II and only interpret it with the Rational Premise in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal over the centuries.This is the honest thing to do.
But there is no comment on Twitter from Fr. Anthony Spadero sj and the Jesuits at La Civilta Cattolica.
Why must Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with a False Premise when a Rational Premise is traditional and not a break with the past Magisterium. With the Rational Premise there is a continuity with the theology of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q etc).
Why must they interpret Vatican Council II with a False and not Rational Premise, in Traditionis Custode ? The bishops must be honest.
When LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only, always, then they are not objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Athanasius Creed or the rest of Tradition.
SSPX, FSSP MUST ONLY ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II, RATIONAL
So the Society of St. Pius X and the FSSP should be free to have the Latin Mass when they want - as long as they affirm Vatican Council II, interpreted with a Rational Premise. This should be the condition for all in the Church including Pope Francis. They must all be free to offer the Novus Ordo Mass or any other liturgy as long as they interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. There would be a continuity with the theology of the Roman Missal ( 1580). Even the post 1970 Missal must be adapted to Vatican Council II ( Rational).The Catholic Church should be clear on this issue and Fr. Spadero must clarify the position of La Civilita Cattolica.
The teaching of the Catholic faith has been constant and traditional when only a Rational Premise was used, for obvious reasons-it was rational! It was common sense.Fr. Spadero must affirm Vatican Council II interpreted, only, with a Rational Premise.He must correct the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which influenced many at Vatican Council II (1962-65).
Pope Francis is now imposing this same irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, upon the whole Church, through Traditionis Custode.
The SSPX bishops are not told that they can affirm Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise and so there will be a continuity with the theology of the pre-1962 missal.
NO DIALOGUE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH CMRI
Also there is no dialogue with the sedevacantist community Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), which has hundreds of priests and nuns. Bishop Mark Pivarunas, the Superior General, does not interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise.If the CMRI and Fr. Spadero agree to interpret the baptism of desire with the Rational Premise we can have unity on theology and doctrine in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades
How can Lumen Gentium 16 an invisible person be a practical exception for EENS ? https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/06/how-can-lumen-gentium-16-invisible.html
Pope Francis criticizes the traditionalists for not accepting Vatican Council II interpreted with the Red Column while he does not accept Vatican Council II, interpreted with the Rational Premise, the Blue Column.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/06/pope-francis-criticizes-traditionalists.html
They cannot point out the same mistake in Traditionis Custode
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/06/repost-they-cannot-point-out-same.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/06/frantonio-spadero-sj-director-civilta.html
Posts
