Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not
announce that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with a Rational Premise
and the Church would return to Feeneyite extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Instead he maintained the False Premise in the
interpretation of Vatican Council II and excommunicated Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre. The SSPX still doesn’t seem to know about it. There is no comment
from them.
Peter Kwasniewski and Taylor Marshall
are not writing about it since they do not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS and
neither do they want to say that Archbishop Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Fr.
Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw
and Bishop Athanasius Schneider made an objective error.Also religious communities had been using the False Premise. They are free now to choose the Rational Option.
Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. The
Catholic Church has returned to the pre-1949 traditional exclusivist
ecclesiology which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted with
the Rational Premise.
The Rational Premise says invisible
cases are invisible and the Irrational Premise says invisible cases are
physically visible in the present times (2022).
So if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS
22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible people then they are not
practical exceptions for the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries and
Magisterium in the 16th century, when they offered the Traditional
Latin Mass.
However if LG 8 etc refer to physically
visible non Catholics saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism
of water in 1965-2022, they become practical exceptions for the strict
interpretation of EENS as it was held in the Patristic period when Mass was offered
in Greek.
Now we know that only the rational and
traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II is honest and ethical and it
will take the Church back to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Jesuits in the
Middle Ages. There is no other rational and traditional option.
This was not known to Archbishop
Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops, Plineo Correa de Oliveira and other traditionalists.
They accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston
which confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This was
political. They also maintained the false excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney
who was not saying anything new.
When Archbishop Lefebvre refused to
accept Vatican Council II it was a time of tension. Pope John Paul II and
Cardinal Ratzinger could not affirm Feeneyite EENS and oppose the Left. They
did not tell Lefebvre about the rational option. Instead they went ahead with a
Leftist excommunication.
Now we have found the missing link.
We know that the popes did not ask
Lefebvre to interpret Vatican Council II, rationally, as does Maria Philomena MICM,
Director of the St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom, New Hampshire, USA. Neither
is Pope Francis asking the SSPX and the traditionalists to interpret the
Council rationally like the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the
St. Benedict Center, NH has said that speculative cases cannot be practical
exceptions for EENS.
But the Diocese of Manchester, USA and
the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith have to confuse speculative cases as
being practical exceptions for EENS, otherwise they will be affirming Feeneyite
EENS, like the religious community in New Hampshire against whom they have
placed a Decree of Prohibitions.
Cardinal Sean O Malley, the archbishop
of Boston, does not want to announce that Boston College and the Archdiocese of
Boston were wrong in the Fr. Leonard Feeney Case. The Boston Heresy Case
referred the heresy and schisn of the hierarchical Church of that time, including the Jesuits, who had
confused invisible cases as being objective examples of salvation outside the
Catholic Church.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was fortunate to have had the excommunication lifted during his time without having to fortunate. Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II interpreted with the common False Premise was heretical and schismatic. He correctly rejected it. But the excommunication was not lifted during his life time.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
