VENI SANCTE SPIRITUS: Secuencia de Pentecostés desde JERUSALÉN : Harpa Dei

Rescuers Push Car Upright to Save Woman Trapped Inside

From the Most Holy Family Monastery Website

Crew Airlifted From Ship as Storm Snaps Vessel in Half

https://vaticancatholic.com/a-crew-is-airlifted-from-a-ship-as-a-storm-snaps-their-vessel-in-half/

Before the happenings in Dijon, Chicago and Rome are repeated in some other place the conservative Catholics have to change their approach, radically.

 

Peter Kwasniewski in a sense is misguiding the Catholics in Chicago even though he may mean well and is sincere. The Latin laity do not need to be so defensive if they know their theology. Instead it is Cardinal Blaise Cupich who should be troubled.

Kwasniewski and the Lefebrists are making the same mistake as in Dijon, France and in Rome with the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the closure of their seminary and ability to offer the Latin Mass.

Before the happenings in Dijon, Chicago and Rome are repeated in some other place the conservative Catholics have to change their approach, radically.

What they have to do is simple. They just have to present the correct theology and then watch how the liberals have no reply. The dominos will fall. Since it would be immoral and may be even illegal, to use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.

All these years the liberals would justify their innovation in faith and morals, by citing Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise.The  conservatives would have no answer.They would agree that Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition. So they were saying that the liberals were correct. This was the case for over 50 years. They could do nothing but complain and cite Tradition while the liberals and Masons would cite Vatican Council II supported by the popes.

Now the tables have changed. It has been discovered that there is an Irrational and Rational Premise which produces a non-traditional or traditional conclusion. So the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition can be produced when and wherever we will. We can rightly choose not to interpret Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise and create a false break with Tradition. We can turn the switch on or off when we want to.

So when Cardinal Walter Kasper cites Vatican Council II then he better use the Rational Premise with the traditional orthodox conclusion. He can no more simply cite Vatican Council II. Since now we know that the Council can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and the conclusion supports Feeneyite EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. It is as if the Vatican Council II, which everyone knew over the last 50 -plus years did not happen.

So in Chicago and the rest of the world the focus should be to show the two popes and the College of Cardinals that they are dishonest when they interpret Vatican Council II with the unethical premise. It is obligatory for them, morally, to choose only the Rational Premise when they interpret the Council and the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. Otherwise the understanding of the Nicene Creed is changed while the Athanasius Creed is rejected.

 This information was not made known to Bishop Roland Minnerath in Dijon. No one spoke about it. It was not known in the Fischer More College issue in Fort Wayne Bend, Texas. 

The announcements were not made when Pope Francis stopped the Latin Mass for the Franciscans of the Immaculate, including the church where I would go for the Latin Mass, Santa Maria di Annunziata, Lungotevere, Rome, near the Vatican.

So if someone still says that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition it could be assumed that he is using the False Premise. He needs to be corrected in public. He must be told to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 as referring to theoretical and speculative cases only in 2022. Only if LG 8 etc refer to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church, in the present times, can there be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed.

For me LG 8 etc refer to hypothetical cases and so Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition. The Council is dogmatic and in harmony with the Athansius Creeds etc.

But for Kwasniewski and the Latin laity in Chicago, and also those who go for Mass in English there, LG 8 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS. So they imply that these are visible and known people saved outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions. But this is irrational. Since only God would know of someone saved outside the Church and we humans cannot see these cases in Heaven or on earth.

The Church can no more be politically correct with the Left ( ADL, SPLC) and reject the strict interpretation of EENS. Since Vatican Council II interpreted with a Rational Premise does not have any practical exceptions for EENS. In practical life we cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I and without faith and the baptism of water. So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are always referring to non practical cases. They are always unknown and invisible people in 2022.

Peter Kwasniewki, Roberto dei Mattei and Taylor Marshall must be ready to affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and face the persecution.They have to acknowledge that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake. A False Premise was used there.BOD and I.I were wrongly projected as objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.

It would be easy for Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, and New Hampshire to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with a Rational Premies. He had already accepted the strict interpretation of EENS, all these years. 

But for the Lefebvrists this is difficult since it would be admitting that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake when he did not know about the Rational Premise and interpreted the Council with the False Premise.This has to be admitted at Chicago.

 This has to be admitted also at the Novus Ordo Mass in Chicago. The Council can be interpreted with the Rational Premise and the conclusion is not liberal but traditionalist.Those who go for Mass in English in Chicago must be asked for statements on LG 8 etc. Is it hypothetical or non hypothetical for them ? they could be asked.If they say they are hypothetical they are affirming Feeneyite EENS which is the theology of the Roman Missal (1580).

Then they can ask Cardinal Blaise Cupich and his bishops to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and so avoid the official schism of the ecclesiastics in Chicago, with the past Magisterium. The Magisterium before the 1940s  only used the Rational Premise to interpret EENS etc.

A cardinal, has to announce before the next shut down of the Latin Mass in a diocese,  that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II,refers only to hypothetical cases. So Vatican Council II is in harmony with Feeneyite EENS and the theology of the Roman Missal (1870). Catholics are not obligated to use the unethical premise to create a false break with the pre-1962 Missal.There could be traditional mission, at the Novus Ordo Mass in Chicago.

Vatican Council II in Traditionis Custode also has to be interpreted only with the Rational Premise with the Roman Missal. The New Missal is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with a False Premise.

In general the books on Vatican Council II written by Pope Benedict and the cardinals and bishops and Jesuit theologians, are now obsolete. Since they all interpreted Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise to create a false break with Tradition.

So when this is known in general in Chicago, at all the liturgies in different languages, then the people will normally proclaim the 16^th century ecclesiology in faith and morals and expect Cardinal Cupich to do the same or resign.

This must be understood in letter writing campaigns and demonstrations. The cardinal is using a false premise to interpret Magisterial Documents, which is unethical by secular standards. In some countries it could be illegal. Is it permitted to interpret Vatican Council II deceptively and then seek privileges?

-Lionel Andrades

WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF 

VATICAN COUNCIL II 

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?

It is unethical to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise.

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/LionelAndrades1/status/1522311748379942912/video/1    https://twitter.com/i/status/1522311748379942912

https://twitter.com/LionelAndrades1/status/1522311748379942912

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

___________________

Recita del Santo Rosario sulla Collina delle Apparizioni - Medjugorje 16 Luglio 2022 Festa di Nostra Signora di Mt. Carmel

Signore essere Tuoi discepoli significa mettersi al servizio del Regno di Dio