The Ecclesia Dei communities which met at Courtlain, France are still not telling Pope Francis that if he interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II rationally, then he would be a traditionalist like them. He would have returned to Catholic Tradition overnight.

 

The Ecclesia Dei communities which met at Courtlain, France are still not telling Pope Francis that if he interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II rationally, then he would be a traditionalist like them. He would have returned to Catholic Tradition overnight.

The Ecclesia Dei communities have still not said that Pope Francis used a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II, in Traditionis Custode.

The Ecclesia Dei communities are allowing the French bishops, in the main line Church,  to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and so reject Tradition.

Brother Andre Marie micm, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in New Hampshire, USA are traditionalists. They affirm Vatican Council II rationally. For them LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical and speculative cases only. So Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as held by the Church Fathers and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston. The popes and saints interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being invisible cases. This is common sense. - Lionel Andrades

No Statement from SSPX Albano.

 

No Statement from SSPX Albano.

The SSPX at Albano are not going to issue a statement on what I write on this blog and send to them. Since it would bring attention to this subject. They simply have to announce that LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases in 2023. They are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed. The issue here is Vatican Council II. How do you interpret Vatican Council II? Is it a break or continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? The main issue here is not EENS.

The SSPX faithful have to believe that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. This is the political position of the Vatican and the Left.

The SSPX do not want to be challenged by the Left.

They have stacks of books which interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. For example, they will complain that LG 16 says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and there is salvation outside the Church. But this is false. This is their irrational interpretation. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a hypothetical case. Always. It is always a hypothetical case. This is reality. It is not a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was known to the popes and saints over the centuries.

The mistake was made in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and then repeated by Rqahner and Ratzinger at Vatican Councl II.

So if Vatican Council II is interpreted with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as all being hypothetical then the Council does not contradict the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.

But if the SSPX Curia interpreted the Council in this way they would be affirming Feeneyite EENS and Tradition. Their priests will be expelled by the SSPX. Since the Jewish Left will protest just as they protested the presence of Bishop Richard Williamson in the SSPX and then in the main line Church.

So the SSPX has to project Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. They cannot tell Pope Francis to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so become a traditionalist. Politically it will not be permitted by the Left. So even though the SSPX priests speak of a return to Tradition and affirm Traditionin many aspects, they are denying the faith on this issue. They have the same position on the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance etc, as do the liberals and the Masons.

For them their reputation and status is important as it is for others in the main line Church, who do not want to be expelled as priests and suspended as religious sisters, only for affirming traditional ecclesiocentrism.

- Lionel Andrades

There is no denial from Michael Voris. His interpretation of Vatican Council II (irrational) is political

 

There is no denial from Michael Voris. His interpretation of Vatican Council II (irrational) is political and meets the standards of the Jewish Left. CMTV is now putting pressure on the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being visible and not invisible cases in 1965-2023.

Michael Voris could be called for a meeting with  Pope Francis as a form of encouragement. Since CMTV interprets Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) not like Brother Andre Marie micm but Jim Russell and Cardinal Kasper.

Christine Niles is also denying the Catholic Faith for political-left reasons and is ‘going forward boldly’ in schism and heresy, which is obligatory for CMTV’s survival.- Lionel Andrades

FSSP church in Rome

 

At  the FSSP  Mass this coming Sunday at the church Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini, the FSSP priests  will interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as referring to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. The faithful in the congregation will just sit through this and accept it as being true.- Lionel Andrades

So the SSPX priest to protect himself and the SSPX he will tell the congregation a lie about Vatican Council II. He will call this being prudent.

 

Next Sunday a new priest will come to the SSPX chapel in Rome and he will interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being visible cases in our human reality. The young people in the chapel for Mass in Latin will believe this is Tradition. They will not think about this. The priest cannot tell them the truth. He cannot say that these are not objective cases. So they are not practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If he says this it means he supports Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition. 

But theology in the Catholic Church is controlled by the Left.

He will be expelled by the SSPX otherwise the Left will place sanctions on the SSPX. So the SSPX, like it ditched Bishop Richard Williamson, will tell this priest to go home.

So to protect himself and the SSPX he will tell the congregation a lie about Vatican Council II. He will call this being prudent. - Lionel Andrades

For me Vatican Council II is a legitimate Council.

 

For me Vatican Council II is a legitimate Council. I interpret LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc rationally i.e. they are invisible cases in 2023 for me. Since they are not objective exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Council has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. It is in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed.

 

The popes from Paul VI have interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally i.e. LG 8 etc were physically visible cases for them. Since they were objective cases they were seen as practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. So EENS was obsolete for Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberals. Archbishop Lefebvre also interpreted LG 8 etc as being exceptions for EENS. So he implied that these were visible cases for them to be exceptions. Invisible cases cannot be examples of salvation outside the Church and exceptions for EENS.

Pope Francis and the cardinals can now correct the error. They can say that what is invisible is invisible only. So they will be interpreting LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc with the rational premise and inference only.

In this way the Church will return to Tradition. It will be the end of theological innovation and liberalism.

For me the Church is traditional since Vatican Council II is traditional. It is ecclesiocentric. This is the Magisterium of the Church according to Vatican Council II. This is the Conciliar Church for me. There is no option for progressivism in the Council for me, since there are no objective examples of salvation outside the Church, mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II. None. There are none in real life.- Lionel Andrades

According to Canon Law for the SSPX to be granted canonical recognition they would have to be Catholic and affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church in public. They do not do this.

 

According to Canon Law for the SSPX to be granted canonical recognition they would have to be Catholic and affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church in public. They do not do this.

1.     They do not interpret Vatican Council II rationally.

2.     They do not interpret the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) rationally.

So they a) re-interpret the Nicene Creed irrationally.

b) They reject the Athanasius Creed with alleged exceptions.

c) They reject Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1442, with alleged exceptions of BOD and I.I.

d) They create exceptions for the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q and 27 Q), when there are none.

e) Their interpretation of the Syllabus of Errors is Cushingite (invisible people are visible) instead of rational Feeneyite (invisible people are invisible in the present times. LG 16 refers to a visible case).For me LG 16 refers to an invisible case.So their conclusion is nontraditional (LG 16 contradicts Feneyeite EENS). It is heretical (EENS has public and objective exceptions and so is obsolete). The Nicene Creed refers to three known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water and so are exceptions for EENS) and schismatic ( they interpret BOD and I.I differently. It is not the same as the pre-1949 Magisterium).For the pre-1949 Magisterium BOD and I.I were invisible cases. This is common sense.

 This is the same fault as the liberals on this subject, like Church Militant TV, FSSP, Catholic Answers etc., who may be conservative on other issues. -Lionel Andrades

 FEBRUARY 8, 2023

If the SSPX priest admits that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican, do not contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), since they are invisible and hypothetical only, then a Decree of Prohbitions will be issued against them by the Vatican and the Left.

 

If the SSPX priest at the chapel in Rome admits that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican, do not contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), since they are invisible and hypothetical only, then a Decree of Prohbitions will be issued against them by the Vatican and the Left.

Since he is supporting the strict interpretation of EENS like the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16 th century, the SSPX this would not be tolerated.The SSPX could expel him to protect the community.

The SSPX at Albano will not comment on this issue.They will pretend that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and will criticize the Council.

This is approved for them by the Vatican and the Left. It is political.This is the false doctrinal issue that Pope Benedict wanted the SSPX to accept.

For Pope Benedict, Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc referred to physically visible cases and so objective exceptions for EENS and the traditional ecclesiocentrism.

This is fantasy theology. It is political nonsense.But this was the political line that Pope Benedict wanted the SSPX to accept.It was only then that their Mass could be licit with full canonical recognition.

So for the last two consecutive Sundays in his homily at the St. Catherine of Siena chapel in Rome, the priest has not mentioned Vatican Council II. He has not said that the Council (LG 8 etc) does not contradict 16th century EENS.

Instead like Pope Pius XII he accepts the irrational 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.Like Pope Paul VI he will continue to use the irrational and not rational premise to interpret the Council.-Lionel Andrades

FEBRUARY 6, 2023

For the second consecutive Sunday the SSPX priest in his homily has not mentioned Vatican Council II.

 

For the second consecutive Sunday the SSPX priest at the St.Catherine of Siena chapel in Rome, in his homily at the 10 am Latin Mass has not mentioned Vatican Council II. Last month I e-mailed the SSPX centers inclusing that of Albano, near Rome. I explained that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is rational and the other is irrational. The SSPX chooses the irrational version. These priests, like the others, at Albano, interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and inference. So the conclusion is nontraditional. Then they will criticize the Council and not their common false premise.

At this Mass regularly attended by Roberto Fiore and his family, they are interpreting Vatican Council II, irrationally and not rationally.

Fr. Aldo Rossi a former prior of the SSPX in Albano, a few years back told me that there were no visible cases of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire (BOD) or in invincible ignorance (II). This is something obvious he said. There were no objective cases. Also some young SSPX priests at that time agreed with him.

However Econe seemed to want to continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. Since for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and Pope Paul VI, BOD and II referred to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II were practical exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), with no known exceptions.

For me BOD and I.I refer to invisible cases but for this priest and the Fiore family it refers to visible cases. So the Council is a break with Tradition for them but not for me.

If the young people who were present at the Mass yesterday morning would interpret the Council rationally like me, then Vatican Council II would not be a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed.

The SSPX at Albano could then ask Pope Francis, the cardinals and all the bishops in the world, to also interpret the Council rationally and so the conclusion will be conservative.

Rome will then have come back to the Catholic Faith; to the conservative Catholic Faith, as Archbishop Lefebvre wanted. The SSPX priest yesterday  interpreted the Council like the liberals. Last Sunday he could not say that the Council supported the ecclesiology of St. Francis of Sales.

So he keeps liberalism in the Church alive. This is appreciated by the Left.       - Lionel Andrades

 JANUARY 31, 2023

Historic SSPX homily

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/01/historic-sspx-homily.html

Healing Service, Holy Mass and Eucharistic Adoration (6 February ...2023) Divine UK

Atheism to Catholicism | Powerful Deathbed Conversion