Tomorrow in Rome, the SSPX
priest Fr. Federico Montini and Fr.Davide, the District Superior of Albano will offer the Latin Mass at
the SSPX chapel in Rome. He will interpret Vatican Council II irrationally as usual.
So he will have changed the interpretation of the Creeds .His interpretation of
the Catechism of Pius X will be different from me.
Changing the
interpretation of the Creeds and choosing publically not to interpret Vatican
Council II is an impediment of offering the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass.
I have mentioned this
before and none of the SSPX priests have denied it.
For political reasons they
are no affirming the Catholic faith in public and they accuse others of being
modernists etc.
If the SSPX priest in Rome
interprets Vatican Council II rationally then he will be affirming the strict
interpret of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since Ad Gentes 7 says all
need faith and the baptism of water for salvation and Lumen Gentium 14 (baptism
of desire), Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance), etc, will
not be objective exceptions. The priests and the laity present at the Latin
Mass do not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS in public i.e. EENS according to the
Fourth Lateran Council (1215) which did not mention any exceptions.
For the traditionalists
and liberals at Vatican Council II there were exceptions. This was the original
mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston
relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So now the priests at the
SSPX chapel are prudent and political. They are not proclaiming the Catholic
faith in public.
Instead they are promoting
mortal sins of faith with new versions of the Creeds and offer Holy Mass as if
all is normal.
They also criticize the
Novus Ordo Mass and preach as if they have superiority in doctrine, or at
least, are following traditional doctrine.
But interpret Magisterial
Documents with an irrational premise is not Church doctrine. It is heresy and
schism.
There is no comment from
the SSPX priests and neither do they want to issue a statement.
A conference will be held by the SSPX at Rimini this month according to their website. All the speakers are expected to interpret the Council irrationally and not rationally.- Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 10, 2023
SSPX Superior General addresses another conference oblivious of his error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Creeds and the rest of Tradition
I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being hypothetical and subjective and they interpret LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Church. Their premise is what is invisible is visible and mine is what is invisible is invisible only.
So their inference is that visible cases of LG 8 etc are objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For me they are not exceptions. Since invisible people cannot be visible exceptions.
For them Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition (EENS, Athanasius Creed etc) since there are objective cases of LG 8 etc. For me Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition since there are no objective exceptions in 1065-2023.
For me Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Does AG 7 support Tradition? While hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are not practical exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council.
So for them there is a separation with the Magisterial over the centuries and for me there is continuity.
They have changed the doctrine on salvation and I have maintained it.- Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 8, 2023
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
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.
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 Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way
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.
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
JULY 27, 2019
Taylor Marshall interprets St.Thomas Aquinas with Cushingism and not Feeneyism and so there is a rupture with Tradition for him
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way
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
Posts
