Giovanni Turco , don Daniele Di Sorco ,Flavio Vetrano, Lorenzo Gasperini, Matteo D'Amico and Mauro Tranquillo when they give talks at SSPX centers interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc irrationally and then they blame the Council, as did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

 

A Catholic education is being offered by the Society of St. Pius X where the teachers interpret the Council irrationally and then reject it. They do not teach the children to interpret the Council rationally in harmony with Tradition. It is the political position of the SSPX and the popes when they teach that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.

Giovanni Turco , don Daniele Di Sorco ,Flavio Vetrano, Lorenzo Gasperini, Matteo D'Amico and Mauro Tranquillo when they give talks at SSPX centers interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc irrationally and then they blame the Council, as did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Fr. Don Federico Montani  offered the Latin Mass today morning at the SSPX chapel in Rome. He announced that there will be a conference today at Albano. It will be held by Prof. Giovanni (probably Giovanni Turco) on the Catechism of the Crisis in the Church. 

This is what he announced. I assume it is a conference on the book by Fr. Matthias Gaudron.

 I am unable to confirm it. Since Fr.Federico  Montani does not speak to me. As a pastor he cannot answer questions on the faith. He does not even proclaim the Faith and encourage me to make it known.

Years back I mentioned that Fr. Matthias Gaudron’s book is obsolete. The Council is no more interpreted as a break with Tradition and Fr. Giovanni Turco will speak for hours on the Council being a break with Tradition and how Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct. Then he too, will refer to the modernists, as if this term, excludes the SSPX.There will be the usual questions and answers which have no connection with Vatican Council II, Feeneyite, traditional, rational and honest.

The homilist, who does not proclaim the Faith like St. Francis Assisi, would not be able to say that the saint interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance rationally. So they were not exceptions for the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which he upheld before the Sultan of his time.

Then he mentions the Synods without saying that the Synods are based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. This is the same political interpretation of the SSPX.

He speaks about the crisis in the Church after Vatican Council II without telling us that Archbishop Lefebvre did not tell Pope Paul VI to please interpret the Council rationally and then there would be no rejection of the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition.

The SSPX will not answer: Why must the people interpret Vatican Council II  like Rahner, Ratzinger, Congsr, Murray, Bea, Kung, Balthazar, Lefebvre , Dietrich von Hildebrand, Michael Davies and others and not like Sister Maria Philomena micm, Director of the St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom, St. Benedict Center, New Hamphire, USA? 

We have a choice. We can interpret the Council rationally like her and not irrationally like Pope Paul VI and the Prefects of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith( formerly CDF), Vatican.

-Lionel Andrades 

OCTOBER 2, 2021

It is because of the error of Michael Davies and Dietrich von Hildebrand that Una Voce International(Davies) and the Roman Forum ( Hildebrand) did not correct Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise, in Traditionis Custode. They did not correct Andre Grillo and 180 signatories who criticized the Latin Mass based upon their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.They did not correct this mistake of the false premise, at the Amazon Synod and in the Abu Statement

 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was interpreting the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise of the Letter of the Holy Office . So he changed the interpretation of the Creeds and Catechisms. He rejected Tradition.He also chose an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. This doctrinal chaos is followed by the SSPX  bishops and the sedevacantist bishops and priests  who had their formation under him. They were in schism like the liberals and the popes. The fake premise creates heresy and schism.

At the Catholic Identiy Conference they will continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and not the rational premise. They will also interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This is not our Catholic identity.

This is being political correct with the Left in the name of Tradition.

Michael Matt’s father and Archbishop Lefebvre had used the false premise to interpret the Creeds, Catechisms, EENS and Vatican Council II like the liberals and the ecclesiastics of that time.It was the same with Michael Davies and Dietrich von Hildebrand. I have mentioned this before and no one denies it.

It is because of the error of Michael Davies and Dietrich von Hildebrand that Una Voce International(Davies) and the Roman Forum ( Hildebrand) did not correct Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise, in Traditionis Custode. 

They did not correct Andre Grillo and 180 signatories who critized the Latin Mass based upon their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.They did not correct this mistake of the false premise, at the Amazon Synod and in the Abu Statement etc. etc.-Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 26, 2021

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, the right hand side column and he was followed in the error by Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Chris Ferrara,, Roberto dei Matteo, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. The SSPX bishops are still interpreting Magisterial documents with the false premise

 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, the right hand side column and he was followed in the error by Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand,  Chris Ferrara,, Roberto dei Matteo, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. The SSPX bishops are still interpreting Magisterial documents with the false premise

 

-Lionel Andrades

MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 2017

It was a small premise and it caused a major and new interpretation of Vatican Council II and Michael Davies did not know about it.

It was a small premise and it caused a major and new interpretation of Vatican Council II  and Michael Davies did not know about it.He wrote his book on the liturgy and the Mass while interpreting Vatican Council II with 'that small premise'.The trads and sedes blame the Novus Ordo Mass when their theology has its foundation on a false premise.Change the premise, or rather get rid of it,and you change the ecclesiology of the Mass.Michael Davis did not know this.

We now know. So we have Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II (Cushingite). Davies was a Cushingite.On this point he was a liberal like Cardinal Ratzinger.

Davies remained politically correct with the Left since he was interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.Like Archbishop Lefebvre and Dietrich von Hildebrand he did not know that it was the premise  which was the cause of the bad 'magisterial' interpretation of the Council.

Michael Davies did not know that the theology and ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo Mass is the same as that of the Tridentine Rite Mass.He thought that the ecclesiology had changed ( and it had with the premise) but did not know the precise source for this change.

He was aware of 'the bad fruits of Vatican Council II' (interpreted with the premise) which were there for all to see.

But like Bishop Bernard Fellay today, he would only criticize Vatican Council II for its conclusions, not knowing the specific cause of the conclusion.

What was the missing link? What did they miss out on?

The error was simply assuming invisible cases were physically visible in the present times.It was an objective error.

Since invisible cases were visible they then inferred that there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They assumed they had found a rupture with 'the ecclesiocentrism of the past'.

So for example,Nostra Aetate says a Muslim can be saved.Why? Since there were known cases for the cardinals.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, hypothetical cases, were assumed to be known .They concluded at that time that there was known salvation outside the Church without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So since there was known salvation outside the Church, Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II could say that a Muslim and a Jew was saved, there was salvation for them in their religion.The Church was no more Feeneyite.Cushing had this approved in 1949.

While the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X says every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation the Letter to the Holy Office 1949 denied it.Michael Davies did not complain.

On the SSPX website Fr.Peter Scott, former Superior of the SSPX in the USA was telling SSPX members at their chapels to not associate with the 'Feeneyites'.The message was placed on line.He was a Cushingite.

Fr.Richard Williamson( now bishop) also wrote a piece on the SSPX website condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney.More Cushingism and irrational reasoning.

The 1949 Letter was saying invisible cases are objective exceptions to EENS and Bishop Williamson,Fr.Scott and Michael Davies did not notice it.

 This was also the reasoning at Vatican Council II and Michael Davies was not aware of it.He died without knowing that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without this faulty reasoning, violating the Principle of Non Contradiction.He did not know that without this premise on invisible cases being visible the conclusion would be different.There would be no change in ecclesiology. This  would be a major change.Since with the premise the Church as at that time in uncharted theological waters.
If they were aware of the false premise there would be no need for Archbishop Lefebvre to object to Vatican Council II.However if this was known, the magisterium kept it a secret.Rahner,Kung and Ratzinger used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and when Lefebvre did not accept the premise and conclusion he was excommunicated.It was similar to Fr.Leonard Feeney who did not accept the baptism of desire etc as being an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was excommmunicated.Then the excommunication was lifted without him having to recant and luckily before he died.Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated by those who used an irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II, which was heresy in itself.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Michael Davies did not know that there would be no change in ecclesiology at Holy Mass.No one told them that all they had to do was to avoid that small premise.

So many changes have been made in the Church based on Vatican Council II and this has been attributed to the Holy Spirit when the exact cause was an irrational premise which violated the Principle of Non Contradiction creating a non traditional and heretical conclusion.

It can still be avoided today but traditionalists are  following the error of Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Archbishop  Lefebvre and others.-Lionel Andrades 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-michael.html


This group of traditionalists instead of correcting the factual error of 1949 consolidated it and did not expose it http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/this-group-of-traditionalists-instead.html

MONDAY, JULY 29, 2019

Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrand, Paolo Pascualucci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Christopher Ferrara, Mons. Ignacio Barreiro and others were all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism.So this line of traditionalist writers had it wrong on the Council.Their premise was wrong and so their conclusion was wrong

Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrand, Paolo Pascualucci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei,Walter Matt, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Christopher Ferrara, Mons. Ignacio Barreiro and others were all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism.So this line of traditionalist writers had it wrong on the Council.Their premise was wrong and so their conclusion was wrong.

Michael Davies, Atila Sinke Guimares, John Vennari interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise. So there was an artificial  rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.

The SSPX bishops too made their original mistake on the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and then superficially read Vatican Council II.Their apostolate is based on Cushingism.

 They accepted the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and then applied it to Vatican Council II.They did not like the conclusion which obviously was heretical.So they rejected the Council. They were not aware of the false premise, which is the basis of Cushingism.Neither could they distinguish between Vatican Council with and without the premise, Vatican Council II Cushingite or Feeneyite.

Instead they carried on writing books  criticizing Vatican Council, interpreted with the false premise and inference.
The popes from Paul VI to Francis and the present ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made the same mistake. They used the same false premise to interpret the Council. 
For them the red is an exception to the blue.1
I do not make the same mistake since I am aware of the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism.The Council is traditional for me.-Lionel Andrades
 


1

FROM THE RIGHT HAND BAR.CLICK TO ACCESS

• Red is an exception to the blue-Bologna School/ Fr.John Zuhlsdorf(1)
• Red is not an exception to the blue - Proclamation (2)
• Red is not an exception to the blue - profances Holy Mass (1)
• Red is not an exception to the blue :CCC 846-848 (4)
• Red not an exception to blue mapping(1)

 

 JULY 28, 2019

Roberto dei Mattei will not announce that he made a mistake on Vatican Council II all these years

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/roberto-dei-mattei-will-not-announce.html

JULY 27, 2019

Taylor Marshall interprets St.Thomas Aquinas with Cushingism and not Feeneyism and so there is a rupture with Tradition for him

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/taylor-marshall-interprets-stthomas.html

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-michael.html


This group of traditionalists instead of correcting the factual error of 1949 consolidated it and did not expose it http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/this-group-of-traditionalists-instead.html

________________________________________