I have received an e-mail from Peter
Kwasniewski inviting me to subscribe to his Sub stack. But of what use is it? Just
because we both support Catholic Tradition in general, it does not mean we are
on the same wavelength.
KWASNIEWSKI DOES NOT RESPOND TO ROCHE
Cardinal Arthur Roche and Andrea Grillo
speak of a new magisterium, a new theology with Vatican Council II. For them
this makes the Latin Mass, with the old ecclesiology of the 1962 Missal, obsolete.
They are correct. Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally has ‘objective exceptions’
for the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, as mentioned often in
the old Missal.
Kwasniewski does not address this point
on the blog 1Peter5 or in his writings elsewhere. Since politically he needs to
interpret Vatican Council II irrationally to be able to speak at conferences at
hotels in the USA. He has not been labeled Anti Semitic. So he does not interpret
Vatican Council II as a continuity with Tradition. He really supports the New
Theology and New Ecumenism by not interpreting LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,
GS 22 etc, rationally. He is allowed by Amazon to publish new books and he can
address conferences - since he is does not affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
and also hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in
invincible ignorance.FOR ME VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS A CONTINUITY WITH THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL
For me the Council is not a break with
Tradition. I affirm the Fourth Lateran Council and also hypothetical cases of
BOD and I.I something Pope Benedict and the cardinals and bishops could not do
for political reasons.
I affirm the Council of Florence (1442)
on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions. For me LG 8,
LG 14, etc are not physically visible cases in 1965-2023.
Kwasniewski politically does not want
to do the same. He has to choose the irrationality to produce a rupture with
Tradition. Money-wise he needs the break with Tradition.
So I affirm :
1) the Fourth Lateran Council
and
2) invisible and hypothetical cases of LG 8, 14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc.
Kwasniewski affirms
1) physically visible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR
3, NA 2 GS 22 etc and
2) rejects the Fourth Lateran Council, with alleged
exceptions.
It is the same as at the Novus Ordo Mass.
Those who go for the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass could say that they affirm
1)
physically visible cases of LG 8, LG 14,
LG 16 etc and so
2) this contradicts the Fourth Lateran Council and the rest of
Tradition ( EENS, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus etc), with alleged physically visible exceptions.
So he rejects Tradition on this issue.
If he did support Tradition he would be labeled Anti Semitic.
Kwasniewski and the SSPX are always careful to
say that there are exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they are
Cushingites and not Feeneyites.
For the SSPX the Boston Heresy refers to
the heresy of Fr. Leonard Feeney and not Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard
Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston. For me it is vice versa.
So there is division in the Church even
among traditionalists, aside, from the liberal-conservative division.
There are the Lefebvrists (Cushingites)
who hold the same position as the liberals and Masons on Vatican Council II
etc, because of the False Premise (invisible non Catholics are physically
visible in the present times). Then there are the non Lefebvrists who are not liberals. These include the Feeneyites.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was
politically and officially supporting heresy and schism on this point and no
one has defended him. He was a Cushingite. Cushingism is non traditional since
it is irrational.Kwasniewski does not discuss this point
on the blog 1Peter5.
A.The division in the Church is not
restricted to Holy Mass but it is restricted to the interpretation of if LG 8,
14, 16 etc as being physically visible or invisible.
The division in the Church is created by how we interpret Vatican Council II, rationally or irrationally,
irrespective if the Mass is in English or Latin.
B.The division in the Church is not
created by Feeneyite EENS.
Brother Thomas Augustine micm, is the
Superior, of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict
Center, Still River, MA, USA. For him Vatican Council II has a rupture with the
dogma EENS.
So 1) physically visible and not invisible cases of LG 8, 14 and 16
etc, for him, are a rupture with the Fourth Lateran Council. He rejects Vatican
Council II (irrational) and accepts the Council (1215).The Council (irrational) contradicts EENS.
Brother Andre Marie micm is the Prior of
the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Center,
Richmond, New Hampshire, USA. For him Vatican Council II is not a rupture with
Tradition.
1) Invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16 etc are always invisible and so do
not contradict the Fourth Lateran Council.
So here again among ‘the Feeneyites’ the
division is created by interpreting LG 8 etc as being invisible (Brother Andre Marie)
or visible (Brother Thomas Augustine).
Both groups at the St. Benedict Center
in New Hampshire and Massachusetts accept Feeneyite EENS but their
interpretation of LG 8 etc differs. So their conclusion, will be traditional or
non traditional. LG 8 etc will be a break or continuity with EENS.
Brother Thomas Augustine micm,
interprets Vatican Council II like the liberals, the Left and the Lefebvrists.
Kwasniewski does the same. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
