Ruth Graham at the New York Times and Nicole Winfield
and Trisha Thomas of the Associated Press in Rome, are still interpreting
Vatican Council II irrationally. It is as if they have a political obligation
to be unethical and dishonest.
The Associated Press has a report on Sister Nathalie Bequart
. It does not mention that she interprets Vatican Council II, irrationally,
like Nicole Winfield and Trisha Thomas. They choose the irrational premise and
inference to produce a nontraditional conclusion. Then they justify liberal
theological innovations in the Catholic Church.
Ruth Graham in her report on the Traditional Latin
Mass in Detroit did not mention that the traditionalists interpret Vatican
Council II irrationally, at Mass. This is the same false interpretation of the
liberal writers at the New York Times.
We now have an option. There can be a rational
interpretation of the Council. So we know that the irrational version of the
NYT and AP is not an option. It is unethical since these journalists have been
informed about their error and yet they continue with the mistake.
1)
If LG 8, 14,
16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible
non Catholics in 1965-2023 and are
objective examples of non Catholics being saved outside the Catholic Church,
without ‘faith and baptism’ , then these are practical exceptions for the dogma
extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and
the Council of Florence (1442).These Councils then become obsolete while
Vatican Council II becomes a revolution in the Church, a new revelation, a
development of doctrine etc.
2) If LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2023, without faith and the baptism of water, then LG 8 etc are not practical exceptions for the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Florence, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X. These Church Documents are not obsolete.
For Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria sj, LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to physically visible non Catholics in 1965-2023 . They followed the mistake of Pope Pius XII in The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. They incorporated the error in two papers of the International Theological Commission. They were Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the baptism of water.The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This mistake os repeated by cardinals Grech and Hollerich and Sr. Nathalie Bequart at the Synod meetings and it is not reported by AP or the NYT -Lionel Andrades
https://apnews.com/article/vatican-pope-synod-women-3497f26d34618ce65fc4f0b9ff86a619
MAY 28, 2023
New York Times correction needed on Vatican Council II : Ruth Graham did not interpret the Council rationally
MAY 26, 2023
H-I-II-1: St.Augustine Institute of Wisdom (SAI) Free Class
MAY 26, 2023
It is at SAI that you have the Catholic Faith.Those who have a vocation to the religious life should contact SAI.
At the St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom (SAI) they interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so also affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So they affirm the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence on EENS. It is at SAI that you have the Catholic Faith.
Those who have a vocation to the religious life should contact SAI. They have courses on the Catholic faith, which are not available at the pontifical universities and colleges, where Vatican Council II etc are interpreted irrationally. At SAI they interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Creeds and Councils rationally unlike the USCCB bishops and cardinals.
While there is so much confusion produced by the CDF, the USCCB, the liberal popes, cardinals and bishops, for political reasons, at SAI they hold on to the one, true, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.There is not change in the teachings of the Church, over the last few centuries. They go back to the Church Fathers unlike the pontifical universitities which create a rupture with the past by using a false premise and inference. This is dishonest.
SAI is part of the apostolate of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA. They accept Pope Francis as the pope but they do not interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally, like him. They are not traditionalists like the SSPX who reject Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally but do not accept the Church Documents interpreted rationally. At SAI too they reject Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted irrationally. But unlike the SSPX they accept these Church Documents when they are interpreted only rationally. So they are not in schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium on EENS etc, like most of the Catholic Church, including popes, cardinals and bishops.-Lionel Andrades
The Saint Augustine Institute of Wisdom* (SAI) is the educational division of Saint Benedict Center. The Institute provides well-rounded and conveniently simple courses of instruction in Catholic thought. The classes available through SAI are a continuation of the studies which have been offered at Saint Benedict Center since 1942. Our teachers are the Popes, the Councils, the Saints, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and, most especially, Holy Scripture and Catholic Tradition. The Saint Augustine Institute of Wisdom is a vehicle for continued adult education for Catholic men and women, in any occupation in life, increasing their knowledge of the Faith and things pertaining to it. In order to give the studies form and purpose, the four-year program – with a Diploma in General Catholic Education – lies at the heart of SAI. However, with hundreds of hours of recorded lectures, SAI is a resource for a lifetime of learning. *In compliance with Canon 216 of the Code of Canon Law, we have changed the name of the “Saint Augustine Institute of Catholic Studies” to the “Saint Augustine Institute of Wisdom.” During our Baptisms, we each received a pinch of salt as a “sign of wisdom.” The new title of our institute reflects our desire to seek after wisdom, particularly the Eternal Wisdom, Jesus Christ – as well as respect for Brother Francis, whose lectures are a sure source of Catholic wisdom.
____________________________________________
MAY 22, 2023
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican made an objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). The CDF is not Magisterial on this issue. Catholics must avoid the error.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican made an objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). The CDF is not Magisterial on this issue. Catholics must avoid the error. An apology is needed from the CDF.
Catholics are not obliged to follow the 1949 LOHO which is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.
The CDF needs to ssue a clarification also on the initial excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney in Boston. The Boston Heresy Case, we now know, refers to the public heresy of the Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston, the American Jesuits and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
For Fr. Leonard Feeney there were no visible cases of the baptism of desire. It does not exist in our human reality. So the BOD was never an exception for the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.
But Pope Pius XII did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney and neither did Pope John XXIII. This was after World War II and the creation of the new state of Israel.
FACTUAL MISTAKE IN LOHO
The CDF (Holy Office) ignored this factual mistake in the LOHO and approved a political excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney. It is a fact of life that we cannot see or meet people saved outside the Church, without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
The CDF implies that we can see such cases. In other words invisible cases are visible. Of course, if the CDF stated that BOD and I.I refers to invisible cases, they would be affirming Feeneyite, traditional EENS.
PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION VIOLATED
But now there is a violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction of Aristotle. How can we see people in Heaven and on earth at the same time? And then how can we wrongly produce a New Theology which says outside the Catholic Church there is salvation; there is known salvation in visible cases on earth. How could the CDF slander and condemn Fr. Leonard Feeney for being rational and traditional?
Pope Paul VI, lifted the excommunication of the Jesuit priest, without him having to recant, but ignored the CDF mistake in the LOHO. He also condoned the same heresy at Vatican Council II (1965).The Council approved the LOHO. This was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The Council Fathers (1965) assumed that invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions for EENS. So it says only those who know about Jesus and the Church (who are not in invincible ignorance) are oriented to Hell. But the Church Councils (1215, 1442) referred to all in general and not just those who know. It includes those who know and yet do not enter.
So in Lumen Gentium 14 there is confusion and there is a new doctrine created by interpreting being saved in invincible ignorance, irrationally i.e. what is invisible is confused as being visible.
However we can avoid this mistake by observing that LG 16 (I.I) and LG 14 (BOD) are hypothetical cases only and so do not contradict Feeneyite EENS. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions for EENS as defined by the two Church Councils in the 13th and 15th century.
So today we are back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology, with Vatican Council II re-interpreted rationally. The LOHO is not Magisterial I repeat, since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake. The Holy Spirit will not contradict the dogma EENS, defined infallibly by Church Councils.
POPE JOHN PAUL II REPEATED THE MISTAKE IN THE ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE CASE
Pope John Paul II made the same mistake as Pope Pius XII. He also wrongly excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who did not accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. He refused to accept the break with Tradition, which was approved by the popes. But Archbishop Lefebvre did not correct the mistake in the LOHO and neither did the SSPX bishops.
Fr. Francois Laisney wrote the book , 'Is Feeneyism Catholic?, which was published by the Angelus Press of the SSPX.It ignores the mistake in the LOHO .
The SSPX and the CDF still interpret the 1949 LOHO with the New Theology, confusing what is invisible as being visible.They use this irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II. It is the theological basis for the the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation etc, which all have their foundation in the same error.
CATHOLICS ARE BEING TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT VATICAN COUNCIL II
Catholics are not being told to interpret the Council only rationally in harmony with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.The Council is not a break with Tradition.
We are back to the undestanding of Church according to the St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Catherine of Siena, St.Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Maximillian Kolbe...
The Church is once again one, holy, Catholics and Apostolic since we no more have two interpretations of the Creeds, Councils, Catechisms and Vatican Council II.
The traditional-liberal division ends.Since liberalism cannot exist with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. There is no more a development of doctrine since outside the Church there is no known salvation.
The St. Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire,USA were correct on EENS.They are now correct on Vatican Council II.Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of his time were correct and the CDF was wrong. - Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment