I accept Vatican Council II and I accept Tradition. Michael Voris and Michael Lofton do not accept Vatican Council II ( rational) and they reject Tradition ( Church Councils, Catechisms etc) which are contradicted by their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, which the SSPX and I reject.

 

According to Michael Voris and Michael Lofton the SSPX are in schism and heresy. I attend the SSPX Sunday Mass in Rome and I accept Vatican Council II. I am not in schism or in heresy.

I affirm the Council which I interpret rationally. I also affirm Tradition which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.

Pope Francis is the pope for me. He ceases to be in union with Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church, when he, the pope, is in public mortal sins of faith and morals.

Michael Voris and Michael Lofton agree with me. Pope Francis, like the two of them, does not affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence 1442 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is heresy and schism for the three of them. I affirm these Councils which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.They are in public mortal sins of faith.

Like the SSPX, I reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.But Michael Voris and Michael Lofton like Pope Francis, John Salza and others accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. This is heretical. It is a source for schism. It is a break with the Magisterium of the Church over the centuries.

This is an innovative new theology created with a fake premise, inference and nontraditional, heretical and schismatic conclusion. The error has been exposed and it is known to people and there has been no denial from Michael Voris or Michael Lofton.

Let me reiterate: I accept Vatican Council II  and I accept Tradition.

Michael Voris and Michael Lofton do not accept Vatican Council II ( rational) and they reject Tradition ( Church Councils, Catechisms etc) which are contradicted by their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, which the SSPX and I reject.- Lionel Andrades

This is the irrational interpretation of the popes and cardinals including Cardinal Arthur Roche but also that of Una Voce and the Latin Mass Societies.

 

Joseph Shaw has a political and career-oriented report on the blog 1Peter5 which is conspicuous for what it does not say and what it prudently does say. He cannot mention the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing. He does not mention how this common Heresy- common for liberals and traditionalists- has influenced the interpretation of Vatican Council II over 60 years. This is the irrational interpretation of the popes and cardinals including Cardinal Arthur Roche but also that of Una Voce and the Latin Mass Societies. 

To avoid offending the Jewish Left, Shaw, like Michael Voris and Michael Lofton, will not affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442). These Councils are not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally i.e. LG 8,14,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always hypothetical cases only. They cannot be objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Joseph Shaw and Cardinal Arthur Roche cannot support in public.

We cannot meet or see any one saved outside the Church in the present times. So in reality there are no known exceptions for EENS as it was defined by the Councils in 1215 and 1442. This was the ecclesiology of the Church in the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. This was Tradition.But this is not the ecclesioslogy at Mass in Latin or English in Britain.

Joseph Shaw in the 1Peter5 blog asks:

Is there any basis on the Conciliar texts which supports Cardinal Roche’s ‘new theology’?

Yes! If LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS according to the Council of Florence etc, then there is a new theology. It says outside the Church there is known salvation,outside the Church there is salvation. The dogma EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council has been made obsolete. Cardinal Roche is correct. There is a new theology, a new ecclesiology, a new magisterium.

He writes:

Austen Ivereigh should note that I am not the one criticising Vatican II. It is Cardinal Roche, by implication, who seems to be casting it as introducing an historical rupture into the teaching of the Church.

Of course Vatican Council II is a historical rupture when it contradicts the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, rejects the Athanasius Creed, rejects the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q) etc. Is this not a rupture for Joseph Shaw?

This is a good point Joseph Shaw makes below here but again he does not address the issue of the Boston Heresy of Pius XII, upon which Cardinal Arthur Roche, Pope Francis and the liberals have drawn upon.

I’d love to hear more about this, because any such argument is going to have this difficulty: that if the Traditional Mass is bad, then the Church’s entire liturgy was bad for fifteen centuries, and most probably the Eastern Rites are bad even today. It would be intriguing indeed to discover that the Dicastery for Divine Worship is saying that celebration ad orientem is theologically problematic, while the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches is at the very same time trying to impose celebration ad orientem on the Syro-Malabars.

If that turns out to be true, we have reached a new phase in the confusion sadly associated with the current papacy.

 The Church’s entire liturgy was not bad for 15 centuries since the theology was  coherent and consistent. There was no rupture. Now there is a rupture with the Boston Heresy and Cardinal Roche is pointing out to it. This was also known to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The issue is not just Vatican Council II, it is how you interpret the Council?

For me there is no new magisterium,no new theology and no new ecclesiology. Since I interpret the Council ratonally unlike Cardinal Roche, Joseph Shaw, the Latin Mass Societies, Una Voce and the English bishops.

Since I interpret the Council rationally I can see through the mistake and propaganda of Cardinal Arthur Roche and Pope Francis and earlier Pope Benedict. When Joseph Shaw also learns to interpret Vatican Council II rationally he will be able to correct the public error of Cardinal Roche, Andrea Grillo, Pope Francis and the liberals in general.  - Lionel Andrades

https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-roche-vatican-ii-rupture/

Michael Voris and Michael Lofton agree with me. Pope Francis is in heresy and schism since he rejects the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) and he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, as do Voris, Lofton and the SSPX.

 

Michael Voris and Michael Lofton agree with me. Pope Francis is in heresy and schism since he rejects the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) and he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, as do Voris, Lofton and the SSPX.

They chose to reject Church teachings and  he past Magisterium to please the political Left.

They have to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II,  as being only hypothetical cases. Then Vatican Council II is no more a break with Tradition.But they do not do this.

The Catholic Church is once again clear on the salvation dogma and doctrines. There is coherence with the past and no more confusion. We have a discovery. The Boston Heresy has been identified and can now be eliminated. The exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same.

If Pope Francis and the CDF choose to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition it means they are choosing the Boston Heresy, to produce a rupture. They can correct this mistake.

If the secular Government Ministries of Education in Europe,  interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past, they too have to be corrected and so also the leftist media, Reuters, AP etc..

In the USA, the New York Times must correct its reports on Vatican Council II. Since the Council, according to the new discovery, now supports the Council of Florence and the Fourth Lateran Council. There is no more a rupture with the popes and saints of the Middle Ages.  - Lionel Andrades

Pope Francis does not accept the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) and neither do Michael Voris and Michael Lofton. It is the same for Catholic Answers, EWTN and the National Catholic Register. There is no denial from them.

 

Pope Francis does not accept the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) and neither do Michael Voris and Michael Lofton. It is the same for Catholic Answers, EWTN and the National Catholic Register. There is no denial from them. Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, without the Boston Heresy, does not contradict these Councils, on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). 

They all interpret the Council irrationally and then project Vatican Council II as a break with the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.This is heresy and schism. There is no denial from them, I repeat.

Father Federico Montani, the SSPX priest from Albano, Italy, who offers the Latin Mass on Sunday mornings at the SSPX chapel in Rome said he affirms the past Council on EENS. But he rejects Vatican Council II. He means he rejects Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally. Pope Francis, Michael Voris, Michael Lofton, EWTN, Catholic Answers, NCR etc.accept Vatican Council II (irrational). The result has to be heresy and schism. 

Even I reject Vatican Council II (irrational). Since it would contradict the past Councils on EENS.

 I affirm Vatican Council II only rationally. There is no Boston Heresy. There is no conflict them with the past Councils on EENS. Vatican Council II supports the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed, the Catechisms and the rest of Tradition. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, YUR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases only. This is interpreting Vatican Council II rationally. It is simple. - Lionel Andrades

Monthly Message of Our Lady Medjugorje | March 25, 2023

The bad news is that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre contradicted the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX

 

The bad news is that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre contradicted the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (ecumenism of return etc) when he projected alleged exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. He also accepted the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. This is not Tradition.

Pope Paul VI also made the same objective mistake at Vatican Council II (1965). It was a mortal sin of faith. He changed the faith with an irrationality which was not magisterial.

Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the same error. They accepted the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing. They did not correct the mistake.

It is with this Boston Heresy that Kennedy Hall, like Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt and Roberto dei Mattei interprets Vatican Council II. This is not Tradition. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office with a false premise says not everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation.

 Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. – Letter of the Holy Office 1949

 It rejects the de fide teachings which made up the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. It is a rupture with the pre-1949 Magisterium on EENS, the Catechisms and the Creeds. This is schism with the past Magisterium. The SSPX bishops accept the 1949 LOHO which is schismatic.

A pope in public mortal sin because of the Boston Heresy ceases to be a pope until he corrects the scandal and returns to Tradition. He needs to return to the teachings of the popes and saints and the past Magisterium. It is the same for the cardinals and bishops according to Canon Law.This is a scandal that Roberto dei Mattei, Kennedy Hall, Joseph Shaw and others need to end before they receive the Eucharist at Holy Mass. - Lionel Andrades

, AUGUST 4, 2018

LOHO was heretical made magisterial and has changed the interpretation of Vatican Council II.We can now choose.

-Lionel Andrades