Pope Francis gave the opening address at the spring assembly of the Italian Bishops' Conference.
(Rome) Excluding the public opening of the 74th General A3ssembly of took place on Monday Italian bishop-kon-fe-ence instead. Pope Francis had not only addressed personnel issues in his opening speech improvised, so participants, but also a "reinterpretation" of the Motu proprio Summorum Pon-ti-fi-cum announced.
The first message concerns the statements of Pope Francis to the New-be-set-ton-gen of the prefect item of Got-tes-service-kon-gre-ga-ti-on . The second message refers to the improvised opening speech of Francis and concerns the liquidation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pon-ti-fi-cum . Corresponding Gerüch th have long been in circulation. Above all, Italian bishops is the most significant legacy of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. a thorn in the side. Understanding of the tradition was never pronounced among the bishops of the Apennine peninsula. The movement of tradition in the “land of the Pope” is not a phenomenon of popular piety, but of intellectuals.
What was said behind closed doors on Monday, reported the traditional French portal Paix Liturgique as follows :
"After the journalists had left the assembly hall, the Pope raised a subject that unites many bishops on the peninsula: the execution of Summorum Pontificum."
And further:
“Francis confirmed the imminent publication of a document that he would write to revise the motu proprio of Benedict XVI. 'to be reinterpreted'. "
The publication of this document was delayed because of objections, said Francis. Especially Cardinal Luis Ladaria SJ, prefect of Glau-ben-kon-gre-ga-ti-on , have raised concerns. Cardinal Ladaria has been responsible for the so-called Ecclesia Dei communities since June 20197 . First as chairman of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and since January 19, 2019 as Prefect of the Faith, after Pope Francis dissolved this commission and incorporated it as a department of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith .
Cardinal Ladaria and other church representatives argue, according to Pope Francis, that a restriction of Summorum Pontificum would provoke "a worldwide malaise" and an "uncontrollable opposition".
Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, however, is promoting the document of a "reinterpretation". Francis named as the cornerstone:
- Communities that already celebrate in the traditional form could continue to do so;
- Diocesan priests, on the other hand, should receive special permission.
This would give general permission for Pope Benedict XVI. granted to all priests, withdrawn. The "reinterpretation" would be, despite all the lack of clarity in the details, a step backwards to the status of the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei from 1988, as a traditional diocesan priest of a northern Italian archdiocese commented. It also remains unclear what hurdles new communities of tradition will face in the future in order to gain recognition and the intended special permit. It was seen as a bad sign in traditionalist circles that one of Pope Francis' closest confidants, the then newly appointed Archbishop of La Plata, Msgr. Victor Manuel Fernández, in 2019Summorum Pon-ti-fi-cum in his archdiocese eli-mi-te-neer . In the past three years, Andrea Grillo, the progressive Italian liturgist referred to as the “liturgist of the Pope”, has struck the same note several times.
"Reform for the worse"
According to the tradition also affiliated website Messa in Lati no Pope Francis got the Italian bishops, an "imminent reform" of Summorum Pontificum announced "for the worse".
“After his umpteenth warning against admitting 'rigid young people' (i.e. those who are faithful to the doctrine of the faith) in seminars, Francis announced to the bishops that he had reached the third draft of a text, the restrictive measures for celebration by Catholic priests the extraordinary form of the mass provided by Benedict XVI. has been released. "
Francis to the bishops:
"Benedict XVI. only wanted to meet the Lefebvrians with Summorum Pontificum, but today it is mainly the young priests who want to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, although they may not even understand Latin ”.
With "Lefebvrianer" Francis meant the Society of St. Pius X. (FSSPX), which was founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Msgr. Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988 for unauthorized episcopal ordinations. He died in Switzerland in 1991. The excommunication has not been lifted by Rome to this day. A few days later, the episcopal ordinations resulted in the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of Pope John Paul II, with which Rome priests and believers met tradition and granted them a right to exist in the Church. However, the framework was tight. It was not until Pope Benedict XVI. expanded this framework in 2007 with the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum generously with the intention of keeping the church oxygenated to make it more sustainable.
According to Messa in Latino, Francis told on Monday the case of a bishop, “to whom a young priest had turned and announced his intention to celebrate in the extraordinary form. When asked if he knew Latin, the young priest told him that he was learning it. The bishop replied that it would be better if he learned Spanish or Vietnamese because there were many Latin Americans and Vietnamese in the diocese. "
Also Messa in Lati no concrete that the reintroduction would be a special permission for the celebration of the traditional rite a "step backwards". It is also unclear whether the indult mentioned by Francis should be obtained by the local bishop or even by the Vatican. This "reform" of Francis would involve a renewed "ghettoization" of priests and faithful who are connected to the traditional rite, so Messa in Lati-no :
"After Moses the Liberator, Pharaoh would return."
Messa in Lati-no also contradicts emphatically that Benedict XVI. Summorum Pon-ti-fi-cum had granted "only" to the Pius-bru-the-economy "to meet". There are a number of clear statements by the German Pope that testify otherwise. As he himself emphasized, it was his main concern that “the Church should maintain internal continuity with its past”. That is why he also said that what was previously "sacred" cannot suddenly be wrong.
Messa in Lati no quotes a priest with the words:
"It does not seem surprising to me that the bishops attack Summorum Pontificum, after all, the question of the traditional liturgy is the most serious, serious and topical problem of the Church."
As Francis spoke of a "third draft" for the said document, it is established so Messa in Lati-no , "that they are working seriously (and more recently) to limit Summorum Pontificum and de facto repeal".
“Therefore there is really cause for concern and prayer: Will Benedict XVI. say something about it? "
Text: Giuseppe di Nar-
image: Avvenire (screenshot)
43 comments:
The N.O. priests in this Diocese are too lazy to say the N.O. Mass every day, much less learn the Latin for the TLM.
The FSSP parish in this diocese is thriving and the Institute of Christ the King and SSPX Parishes in the adjoining diocese are thriving too.
I know of only one N.O. priest in this diocese that has bothered to learn the TLM since 2007.
Pope Francis thinks it is the Mass which makes a Catholic or seminarist 'rigid' when it really is the use of the false premise. With the LA interpretation of VC 2 the whole Church is likely to go 'rigid'.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II(Updated 27.05.2021 Thursdays)
What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.
Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy-writed or trade-marked? No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).
How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.
Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.
What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).
(Incomplete)Continued
Ray Burke is right: the SSPX are schismatics.
The fascination with the Latin Mass by a few young insecure and intellectually challenged priests is little more than faddism.
Continued
What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.
Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.
For the present two popes and the traditionalists the red is an exception to the blue. This is irrational.
SO WE GO BACK TO TRADITION EVEN WHEN THE MASS IS IN ENGLISH, LATIN OR BYZANTINE GREEK.
Papa Francesco e un idiota, un sciocco,e un deficiente se pensa di poter passare questo e i fedeli Cattolici obbediranno. Lancera una rivolta che spero lo faccia cadere della sedia. Lui e suoi collaboratori sono eretici, omosessuali,e perverti . Il peggior papa che la Chiesa abbia mai avunto.. La cosa migliore che Papa Francesco puo fare per la Chiesa e morire o scomparire. Viva la tradizione Cattolica, viva la Messe Tridentina. Va fanculo Papa Francescoe tutti i tuoi collaboratori omosessuali liberali radicali !! Tu non sei CAttolici....noi lo siamo. Tutti di Cattolici fedeli, pregiamo per la Messe di tradizione Cattolico, e respingere Papa Franceso e suo VAticano. Abbandonari la Chiesa di "Vatcano II".
I thought I would do something different and make my response in a language that maye some people in Italy might read. Grammar and some spelling is wrong I'm sure, but you'll get the point. Reject Pope Francis and his version of the Church. If he does this thing, he will have unleashed a tidal wave of opposition. He's hated in Italy as it is now....jsut wait until he pulls this kind of shit.
Damian M. Malliapalli
New Prefect for Sacred Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship- Englishman Arthur Roche, 71.
Apparently not a confrontational person, but one not inclined to be favorable to the Tridentine Latin MAss. He wrote recently an article/paper mildly insulting/critical to the LAtin Mass and those who support it.
Typical Bergoglio. The new under secretaries to the congregation are of the same ilk.
Just like Francis is trying to undo the work of Benedict XVI regarding the Mass etc., when Francis is gone in a few months to a year , the next Pope will undo him. Perminantly.
Damian M. Malliapalli.
(regarding this, I already read of a small order of French active nuns, traditional nuns, who have 6 establishments in France and 1 each in Italy and Spain are switching to the SSPX sponsors. The are teaching/nursing nuns....less than 100 members, but have 11 in training...which is more most USA Orders of sisters have had in 45 years.
Don Pietro Leone writing on Vatican Council II and other religions on the web blog Rorate Caeili cites Unitatis Redintigratio,the Decree on Ecumenism, as if they are non hypothetical and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 1965-2021.This is an error in reasoning. His premise is false. So his conclusion has to be non traditional.
For me the theoretical and speculative lines from Unitatis Redintigratio or Lumen Gentium which he has quoted was a weak attempt by some of the Council Fathers, to eliminate the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
Why does Leone still have to interpret Vatican Council II with the confusion of the liberals and Lefebvrists ?
So what if Yves Congar and the others were present at Vatican Council II ? If UR 3 and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases in our reality, then they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
But for Leone they are exceptions.Since he has confused UR 3, LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Real people saved without faith and baptism and who are known to us.This is irrational. There are no such known people. If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.Yet for Leone Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.
Why don’t the Lefebvrists, like Leone, affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and not the liberal version, which projects UR 3,LG 8 as being practical exceptions to Tradition in general and exclusive salvation in particular ?.
There are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church and so there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any mentioned in Vatican Council II, unless of course a false premise continues to be employed.
Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?
Rorate Caeili and Don Leone are really promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They please the Masons who want the Council to be interpreted as a rupture with Catholic Tradition.It is as if Rorate Caeili has to interpet UR 3 as a rupture with an ecumenism of return or the retired Jewish Left profesor at the Angelicum, Rome, will object once again.
The big names at Vatican Council II, who thought they could get rid of the dogma EENS, by employing the error in the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949, which was overlooked by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII,did not know that there was a built in error.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to objective cases in our time and space.So they never ever were exceptions to EENS or the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
PREISTS EXPECTED TO AFFIRM THE ATHANASIUS CREED IN THE PARISH.VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NO MORE A RUPTURE
Priests are allowed to not affirm the Athanasius Creed in public and offer Holy Mass ?
The Catechesis in the parish is not Magisterial when the priests cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed in public.They also choose to reject the Athanasius Creed when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.
We now have the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II which does not employ the false premise. It interprets the Council with the rational premise, inference and conclusion. So there is no rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
So the Parish Priest is expected to affirm the Athanasius Creed he can no more say that it is contradicted with Vatican Council II.
I'm only 33 (just), but I've grown up with this b.s. about Vatican II all my life. I suppose it's my fault, being interested in the Church from my teen years, but unlike a cousin, not interested in pursuing religious life. I read about the Church, and have heard all my life about all the arguments for and against VAtican II, the "Novus Ordo", married priests, women priests, LGBTQ rights, gay blessings,gay marriage, ad lib MAsses, the Tridentine LAtin MAss, allow for tradition, disallow all tradition, etc. etc.
The easy answer which I which the SSPX and other traditional/traditionalist CAtholic groups wold have done, however outrageous it sounds, was to select a good site, build a new copy of Rome (or at least build a CAtholic city), gather everyone together, build up the city, build monasteries and convents to preserve small remnants of religious Order being wiped out by VAtican II, and had the SSPX and other groups elect a "substitute" Pope and "Vatican" which would be re-integrated back into the Church only when the real Church returned to tradition of the days of the great Pius XII, etc.
The older I get, and the more I read about this papal asshole Francis and his people, the more I resent not being able to have the same magnificent Faith my Mom and Dad had most of their lives, and generations before that. Now, most of my family doesn't go to Church at all. I don't. Pope Francis etc. drove me out. I don't go at all. Most of my family here in the states, or in Ireland, or in Italy, or in India don' go to MAss. Some in India have converted to the Syrian Orthodox Church, 1 is now a fundamentalist Christian. But the rest rarely or never go to MAss. They left when the "Pope Francis" style priests started putting Hindu songs and dance into the MAss.
I always liked posting on this site, but I'm sick of hearing about Jews. As for the CAtholic Church, it's getting worse, not better. Asshole Francis has done nothing about the schism in Germany. I read his silence/inaction as approval for it all. He and his people are wrecking the Church. Most of the USA Bishops want to stand up and say Biden is sinful to take Holy Communion considering his views, but Francis and company want to overlook it. Don't make waves. Don't stand up for CAtholic truth.The VAtican II Church is bad, but the kind of "chuch" they want to build in a pile of shit.
So for the short term anyway.... it's worthless. Another "Pope Francis" style pope and it'll all be gone. Who needs it?
Damian M. Malliapalli
Ever Pope since 1965 has affirmed that all of the core teaching of all of the Councils of the Church are contained and preserved in the Magisterium of Vatican II. Those who do not accept the teachings of Vatican II in its entirety have not received the Tradition of the Church in its fullness.
They are cherry picking the Deposit of Faith. Lefebvre and his successors of whatever ilk are prize examples.
Hey "Max", Vatican II was condemned by the Syllabus of Errors, and the Encyclicals Quas Primas, and many others. Not very deep in your theology, I see. Vatican II cannot trump the superior authority of Papal Envyclicals, and the airheads such as the corrupt Popes of the Renaissance and the Modern Age. If a Pope like Bergoglio says Sodomic relationships feel right, we know this is not God.
"If a Pope like Bergoglio says Sodomic relationships feel right, we know this is not God."
Spot on! NOthing Bergoglio says is of God. His latest behind the scenes moves to supress or severely limit the Tridentine LAtin MAss by altering Summorum Pontificum is proof he is not of God. This initiative of Benedict XVI gave a brief burst of renewed hope and holiness to the Church. But the radicals pulled him down. Now Francis and his thugs want to finish the job.
It is a sign of someone evil who wants to destroy that which is accomplishing good, or which has good fruit.
Another example of evil are the Democrats and Biden destroying the good work of President Trump.
I would love Francis to get his reward for all his "work" before he has a chance to destroy the Church further.
I watched his Pentecost Mass on youtube. Granted, only 1,500 people attended due to covid. But no one cheered, no one applauded when Bergoglio limped up the aisle of St. Peter's like they did for all past Popes when they walked firmly to the altar, or were carried on the Sedia.. And no one will cry when he's gone.
Damian M. Malliapalli
Constantine said...
Hey "Max", Vatican II was condemned by the Syllabus of Errors, and the Encyclicals Quas Primas, and many others. Not very deep in your theology, I see. Vatican II cannot trump the superior authority of Papal Envyclicals, and the airheads such as the corrupt Popes of the Renaissance and the Modern Age. If a Pope like Bergoglio says Sodomic relationships feel right, we know this is not God.
There are two interpretations of VC2. The details are there on Lionel's Blog:eucharistandmission
There is VC 2 interpreted with a false premise and VC 2 interpreted withiut it. Since the premises are different the conclusion will also be different. VC 2 with the false premise produces a non traditional conclusion So there is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. But VC 2 without the false premise supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus.
When LG 8,Lg 14,LG 16,UR etc refer to visible non Catholics in 1965-2021 who are saved without faith and the baptism of water, then there is a rupture with EENS etc.
Visble non Catholics in the present times ??
But if LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases in the present times then there are no known practical exceptions for the Syllabus etc.
For most people LG 8 etc are exceptions for EENs, the Syllabus of Etc. So their premise is false. They assume unknown cases are known.Physically invisible people saved and in Heavenb are physically visible, on earth.
So without this error the Council is traditional this is even though Ratznger,Rahner,Cushing, Congar and the others interpreted VC 2 with the false premise.
May 29, 2021
Scandal at my parish
I affirm the Athanasius Creed (Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally...)in the parish but the priests and many of the parishioners do not do the same.
I live in the parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea.It is a 20-minute drive from Rome's Battistini Metro Station.How can they offer/attend Holy Mass and not affirm the infallible teaching of the Athanasius Creed?
I affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally in the parish but the priests and most of the parishioners do not do so.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. In other words, they refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. They refer to physically visible people saved without faith and the baptism of water.Invisible and unknown people cannot be exceptions to the Creed. So with this irrationality they make the Athanasius Creed obsolete.
My interpretation of Vatican Council II is rational and traditional.It is not a break with the Creeds.
How can the priests and people offer/attend Holy Mass with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II etc ?
When the priests and people in the parish do not affirm the Athanasius Creed and Vatican Council II, do they no have to go for the Sacrament of Confession, end the scandal and correct themselves in public ?
For me the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only. I cannot meet or see someone saved as such.It is only God who can know if someone is saved with BOD and I.I. So there are no practical cases of BOD and I.I for me.There are also no practical exceptions to the past Magisterial ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
But with visible for them,BOD and I.I, the priests and catechists and others in the parish, reject the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
They change the interpretation of Vatican Council II.Since for them, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc contradict the dogma EENS. There are practical exceptions for them.
So they have rejected the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.
They have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed. It is " I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( so EENS is rejected)".
They have changed the meaning of the Apostles Creed. It is " I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,'which teaches the Catholic Church today that there is known salvation outside the Church and so the Creeds and Catechisms are obsolete in their old understanding".
They have changed the meaning of the First Commandment which now indicates for them that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation and so there is true worship in non Christian religions.
This is public heresy, scandal and schism and Holy Mass is offered/ attended, by all in the parish.
This scandal has to be rectified in public, before absolution is given in the Confessional.
(From Lionel's blog)
Any Catholic who willfully persists is turning their back on Vatican II and all of its teachings is putting their salvation at serious risk.
Vatican II is ignored by most of the world’s bishops anyway.
"Any Catholic who willfully persists is turning their back on Vatican II and all of its teachings is putting their salvation at serious risk."
That is not true. That is the same kind of bullshit radical liberals have tried to push VAtican II down peoples throats for 55+ years....the latest guilty party, asshole Bergoglio (aka "pope" Francis)
Damian M. Malliapalli
"Vatican II is ignored by most of the world’s bishops anyway."
All piss and wind from Tancred who has never figured out the difference between ambit claim, assertion and demonstrable fact.
QAnon catholicism!
"Vatican II is ignored by most of the world’s bishops anyway."
If by that you mean that most bishops have departed from "Vatican II" and gone way beyond it and made up their own rules (as in Germany, etc.), then this statement is true 100%
If on the other hand, if it is meant that most bishops have ignored it or not implemented it (meaning kept to the pre-VAtican II ways or paid VAtican II lip service), then that's 100% wrong.
I was born in 1988, in the Philly archdiocese. We had a magnificent cardinal archbishop, John J. Krol, who actually participated in VAtican II. But he ruled Philadelphia like a true, traditional CArdinal Archbishop. He didn't become everyone's best bud, like Francis likes to do, or some other Bishops have done. He was a real Prince of the Church, and as such, governed the archdiocese with firmness and good decisions. He implemented VAtican II as written......without interpretation. And he disallowed abuses. Unlike now, the archdiosecean seminary of Saint Charles Borromeo (which declined from 585 seminarians pre-VAtican II-to around 250-60 by the end of CArdinal Krol's term(1988), under CArdinal Krol disallowed seminarians to wear beards. Clerical shirts becasue the standard, but many chose to wear cassocks still. About 15-25 seminarians were ordained every year after about 1970, with some years having as many as 40. Today, it's about 3-4 a year.
So CArdinal Krol ruled the archdiocese well. He implemented VAtican II AS WRITTEN, and as a result, the Faith in our Archdiocese remained fairly strong. He died in 1997, and with his successors came pedophile scandals, and massive closures.
To be sure, there were pedophile scandals during Cardinal Krol's time....but he removed the priest....he didn't allow them to continue. He banished them to retirement and did not permit them to function as priests. He was a proud Polish-American prelate, and a great friend of JPII.
Were it not for CArdinal Krol, all the declines we are suffering now would have been far worse. We are thankful that at least during his term, our archdiocese was spared the wreckage of the CAtholic Church we are suffering thru now, thanks to more "pastoral/progressive" bishops, and a radical "pope"
Damian M. Malliapalli
Max Z:
Any Catholic who willfully persists is turning their back on Vatican II and all of its teachings is putting their salvation at serious risk.
This would apply to you also Max.You need to accept VC2.
Please do not reject VC2 by interpreting it with a false premise like the popes from Paul VI to Francis.
Be honest. Be ethical.Be Catholic.
There are today two interpretations of VC2.One is rational and the other irrational. This is reality. The rational interpretation of VC 2 produces a traditional conclusion. So the Council is no more a big issue for the conservatives. It is the liberals who can no more cite the Council. Since their false premise, which creates a rupture with Tradtion, has been exposed.
Peter Kwasniewski writes on the blog 1Peter5
If someone were to ask me “Why be a Catholic?,” I would reply: The theology of the Church in its apostolic, patristic, and scholastic plenitude, a grand oak tree birthed from a tiny acorn, showing in its mighty trunk and vast crown the power of the principles at root. As John Henry Newman saw and described so well in writing the work that accompanied his entry into the Roman Church, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the truth unfolds in strength and stability across the ages of faith. Whether we take up the formidable Summa theologiae of St Thomas Aquinas with its seried ranks of syllogisms or simply consult any standard catechism from the Counter-Reformation down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council, we will find one and the same Catholic Faith, always confessing the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the perfect humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, the virginal maternity of Mary, the veneration of the saints, the life of grace, virtues, prayer, worship, and sacraments, the promise of eternal life in the bliss of the beatific vision.-from A Reply to the Discouraged Seminarian
https://onepeterfive.com/a-reply-to-the-discouraged-seminarian-there-are-6000-reasons-to-remain-catholic/
'down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council'.
Down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council II ? why did Peter Kwasniewski have to stop here.
Why? Since he is using the narrative of the progressivists and the Lefebvrists.
kwasniewski, as he puts it in the article, 'allows the enemy to dictate the terms of the entire debate'.He is interpreting the Council like the Modernists.
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II the great Catholic Tradition does not stop on the eve of Vatican Council II.
Steve Skojec on his blog 1Peter5 has written about 'crippled religion' and the conradictions and confusion he faces.It must be the same for Peter Kwasniewki. Since in a report to a seminarian, Kwasniewlski writes,on 1Peter5 that Catholic Tradition ended on the eve of the Second Vatican Council II.
Peter Kwasniewski would be having similar confusions and doubts, since like Steve, he inteprets all Magisterial documents with a false premise and inference.So his conclusion has to be non traditional. Then they both would wrongly blame Vatican Council II.Even the FSSP priests interpete Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms with the same fake premise and they offer the Latin Mass.
This will not be helpful for Steve and his family.Since assuming he interprets Vatican Council II and Church documents, without the irrationality, he will return ro Feeneyite EENS, the Athanasius Creed's outside the Church there is no salvation, with no exceptions, and an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
This would put him out of step with the FSSP since they are liberal in their ecclesiology( becuase of the false premise) and are only traditional on the Mass.They interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology, created with the false premise, just like Pope Francis. But then, also just like Steve Skojec and Peter Kwasniewski.
Fine mess we are all in I would agree.
Steve and Peter will have to interpret VC2 without the false premise.This would make them traditonalists on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, like the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, NH and the Most Holy Family Monastery,New York.
This would be a beginning to make sense in his mind, to clear things up so that there is no hermeneutic of rupture with the past and neither will Vatican Council II be an issue any more for him.Since when the Council is traditional collegiality,ecumenism and religious liberty are not contradicted
But there still is the problem of the FSSPX parish. They may offer Mass facing the East and give the Eucharist on the tongue, but with the false premise, they are in a big rupture with Tradition and Steve and his family have to live with it.
STEVE SKOJEC COULD NOTE THE DISHONESTY OF THE FSSP PRIESTS IN HIS PARISH
Steve Skojec must know that the FSSP priests in his parish use a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II.In this way only they could create a Theology, New Ecumenism,New Evangelisation etc supported by the New Canon Law(1983),supporting the irrationality.This is unethical. It is not Catholic.The FSSP priests in Rome for example, are allowed to offer the Latin Mass at the church Santissima dei Pelligrini, since they use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms.The result is liberalism.This is appreciated by the Left.There is a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc.This is not the Deposit of the Faith but innovation.It is created by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then drawing out false conclusions, non traditional conclusions.This is 'a development of doctrine and dogma' with subterfuge.
Those who do this need to be called out and told to go for Confession.
So if the FSSP priests expects the Skojec family to affirm the New Theology, New Ecumenism etc, it is dishonesty.
When an FSSP priest uses a fake premise to interpet the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) and Vatican Council II(LG 8, UR 3 etc)it is being dishonest.
When an FSSP priest affirms the New Theology based upon the false premise, it is dishonesty.
When an FSSP priest supports the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation etc, it is being dishonest.
In each of these cases he has a choice but chooses the irrational alternative, the false premise instead of the rational alternative.
This disohonesty needs to be checked in some way among the FSSP and the liberals.
DON PIETRO LEONE'S REPORTS ON VATICAN COUNCIL II POSTED BY RORATE CAELI PLEASE THE LEFT
It is as if the weblog Rorate Caeli promotes Don Pietro Leone's reports on Vatican Council II because they are a rupture with Tradition(EENS) to show the liberals and the Left that he is one of them. If Vatican Council II was interpreted without the fake premise and in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, they would object.Now they appreciate the posts on Rorate Caeili showing, as the liberal popes believed,that the Council is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Today so many Catholics still wrongly believe that the Council is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
For the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center, Stll River, MA, USA, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.So they have negated Feeneyite EENS; EENS with no known exceptions, and so have been granted canonical recognition by Bishop Robert Mcmanus in the diocese of Worcester, USA.They interpret the Council with the fake premise, like all the religious communities in the dioceseSo the common liberalism in the diocese of Worcester comes with the fake premise and does not depend upon the liturgy.
GO BACK TO THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM ?
We cannot just say, "Let's go back to the Baltimore Catechism".It has to be clarified that when the Baltimore Catechism for example mentions the baptism of desire(BOD), then the BOD, can be intepreteted as a hypothetical or objective case.It is subjective or objective, implicit or explicit.This is how it is being interpreted by Catholics. If the prenmise is different then the conclusion will be a rupture or continuation with Tradition.It will mean accepting the strict intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus or rejecting it.The conclusion is traditional or non traditional.
If a Catholic can throw away the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), then every thing else can be done away with. So of what good are the Catehisms then ? Of what good are the Catechisms if EENS has exceptions today but not have exceptions in the 16th century?
It has to be clarified that when the Baltimore Catechism refers to the baptism of desire it is only to a hypothetical, subjective, implicit and theoretical case.It exists only in our mind.There is no BOD case in our human reality, at Newton's level of time and space.This is the rational interpretation of BOD.
But for the Americanists this was not true. The baptism of desire was an objective case. It was a practical exception to the traditional strict itnerpetation of EENS. BOD did not exist just in our mind for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So a new doctrine on salvation was created in the Church and there was a new way to read the Catechisms; to read them wrongly.The new doctrine was EENS with exceptions;outside the Church there is salvation.
So when reading the Catechisms( Baltimore,Trent Pius X,John Paul II etc)it is important to note that the baptsm of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical cases only.
If this is not clarified then all the Catechisms will be confusing and they would contradict itself and each other.
Also Vatican Council II would be at odds with the old Catechisms.LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc would contradict the strict interpretation of EENS when it is mentioned in the Catechisms example 24Q and 27Q in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
IT IS THE LIBERALS NOW WHO HAVE TO BE OPEN TO VATICAN COUNCIL II
Max,
We can no more say that the traditionalists have to be open to Vatican Council II.We can no more interpret the Council in an irrational way and then pretend it is a rupture with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
With the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II we have changed the way we look at the Council.Now it is the liberals who have to be open to a traditional VC2.The Council has 'changed before our every eyes'.
VC2 interpreted rationally is not a rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church,which was there at the time of St. Joan of Arc.
Outside the Church there is no salvation is a central teaching of Vatican Council II(AG 7) and is not restricted to conservative Catholics only.
MASSIMO FAGGIOLI
Massimo Faggioli would say that the theology of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ended with Vatican Council II.Now he knows that with the Council interpreted rationally, there can only be the theology today of the Syllabus of Errors.It is the only rational alternative.
There cannot be ' a development of doctrine or dogma' with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II or a false interpretation of John Henry Newman.The Council interpreted rationally supports Newman who said that dogmas do not change but doctrines can change before they are confirmed, as a dogma e.g The Holy Trinity.
Massimo Faggioli,John Allen jr. Michael Sean Winters and the reporters at The Tablet, U.K, cannot change the dogma EENS by irrationally interpreting the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and then projecting them as practical exceptions to EENS.Similarly they cannot re-interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then project the Council as a break with EENS etc.
BP.SCHNEIDER USED THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE THE LIBERALS AND MODERNISTS
Bishop Athanasius Schneider officially accepted Vatican Council II and interpreted it with the false premise( invisible cases of LG 16(invincible ignorance) are visible)and so his conclusion is non traditional(There are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc.They are all now obsolete).This is schism with the past popes on EENS etc.It is a break with the past Magisterium.
He also accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).It indicates unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are known and visible exceptions to traditional EENS.So every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation, according to LOHO.This is official heresy based upon a false premise.It is accepted by Bishop Schneider.
A Catholic who rejects the Athanasius Creed and re-interprets Vatican Council II irrationally would not be making a common Profession of Faith.He would be a Modernist.
BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER DID NOT SUPPORT BROTHER ANDRE MARIE MICM ON A DOCTRINAL ISSUE.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider did not come out in support of Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St.Benedict Center, New Hampshire, when a Decree of Prohibitions was placed upon the religious community, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Diocese of Worcester and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).The issue was doctrinal.
He could not support them in public since he uses the New Theology to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and Vatican Council II(VC2), like the present two popes.
As I have mentioned before, Bishop Schneider,officially accepts and interprets VC 2 and EENS with the false premise ( invisible cases of LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance)are physically visible in the present times)and so his conclusion is non traditional( There are practical and known exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc. So they are made obsolete).This is schism with the past popes on EENS .
For the popes over the centuries the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were always physically invisible. This is common sense.
Bishop Schneider also accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO).It projects unknown and invisible cases of BOD and I.I as being known and visible exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS.So with EENS allegedly contradicted LOHO concluded that not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.This is a heretical and schismatic conclusion based upon irrational reasoning.It is officially accepted by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
So in public Bishop Schneider could not affirm Feneeyite EENS like the St.Benedict Cente,NH and neither could be interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS and Tradition.Heinterprets LG 16 as a break with Tradition and faults the Council.He is really a liberal on this point too.
CATHOLIC PRIESTS AGREE ON FIVE POINTS
In the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, near the Battistini Metro Station, there have been two religious communities housed there, the Joseleitos Christo and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.This is also the parish of Lionel Andrades according to his blog Eucharist and Mission( Lionel's Blog).The religious communities there agree with him on the following five points.
1.They agree that there are no physically visible cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire over the last 60 years in Italy.If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.
2.They agree that there are no physically visible non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water over the last 60 years in Italy.If any one was saved as such it would be known only to God.
3.The priests of the two religious communities agree with Lionel Andrades when he says that we do not know of any one in the present times who is saved as a martyr(baptism of blood)and without the baptism of water.If St.Emerentiana or Dismas, the Good Thief, was saved without the baptism of water,we do not know of any such case over the last few years or more in Italy.
4.So the baptism of desire,baptism of blood and invincible ignorance cannot be practical examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.They cannot be practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed.It says outside the Church there is no salvation.They cannot be practical exceptions for Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation(to avoid Hell).
The Catholic priests agree on this point too.
5.So there can be nothing in Vatican Council II ( interpreted rationally) to contradict the Athanasius Creed and Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, can refer to only hypothetical cases.They are speculative. They are not practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Cantate Domino, Council of florence 1441 etc).
None of these FIVE POINTS are denied by the religious communities Joseleitos Christo and the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth.This is the parish in which Pope Francis closed down the seminary of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
CATHOLIC PRIESTS AGREE ON THE FIVE POINTS BUT WILL NOT PROCLIAM THEM IN PUBLIC
The present and past priests at the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth,Casalotti, Boccea, near Rome's Battistini Metro Station,agree with the FIVE POINTS mentioned above but in public they will not affirm Vatican Council II,interpreted without the false premise. They will not proclaim Vatican Council II without confusing what is invisible as being visible and then projecting practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So while Lionel Andrades affirms these Magisterial documents rationally, they have to deny them as being obsolete and contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.The false premise creates exceptions.
They have to deny the Athanasius Creed and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church because of the false premise which creates a non traditional conclusion.
Lionel Andrades can affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q) which is not in conflict with hypothetical cases of being saved invincible ignorance, which is mentioned in that Catechism.The priests from the two religious communities, who offer Holy Mass in Italian, cannot do the same.They cannot do so since being saved in invincible ignorance is not hypothetical for them. If it was hypothetical it would not be an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS. It would mean that they would have to affirm the strict interpretation of EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. So they reject the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q).
RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES WOULD BE SAYING THE SAME THING EXCEPT FOR THE FALSE PREMISE WHICH CREATES A NON TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION FOR THEM.
The Joseleitos Christo and Franciscans of the Immaculate priests would be saying the same thing as Lionel Andrades on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)but for the false premise( invisible cases of BOD and I.I are visible)which the priests utilise, to create a non traditional conclusion (EENS, Athanasius Creed etc are obsolete).
Father Francisco B.Barbosa sjc, the present Parish Priest at Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome and Father Rosario Sammarco f.i, the Rector of the Franciscans of the Immaculate seminary in the parish, last year, would be saying the same thing as Lionel Andrades, except, that they use a false premise( invisible cases of LG 16( invincible ignorance, LG 14( baptism of desire) etc are physically visible) to create a non-traditional conclusion(EENS, Syllabus etc are obsolete).
The priests from the two religious communities, in this diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Rome, agree on the five- common- sense points, mentioned above.However in public they are not affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition (EENS etc).
HOW CAN PRIESTS OFFER HOLY MASS AND NOT INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IN HARMONY WITH THE ATHANASIUS CREED AND EENS ?
How can priests offer Holy Mass in the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Rome, who do not accept and interpret Vatican Council II rationally and in harmony with the Athanasius Creed ? They also re-interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed with the irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I).They have the Catechisms contradict each other, since unknown cases of BOD and I.I are projected as known examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times (1965-2021).So they emerge as practical exceptions to the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.The priests are supported in this error by the bishop and Curia of the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Rome.
STEVE SKOJEC NEEDS TO DISCUSS CHURCH DOCTRINE WITH THE FSSP PRIEST
The FSSP are liberals who think they are traditionalists since they offer the Mass in Latin.Steve Skojec needs to work with them instead of changing parishes.The central issue is Vatican Council II.We have to agree on VC2 then the rest will fall in place.
The FSSP may not want to change on VC2. They could cite Pope Francis who affirms the Council, interpreted rationally and so can reject Tradition.
We have to agree on what is rational and irrational, unethical and ethical.The FSSP cannot continue to interpret Magisterial documents with a false premise and then consider themselves Catholic.
This has to be discussed and written about by Steve Skojec who received some 70,000 comments/page views on his criticism of 'crippled religion'.
Once it is understood that the FSSP and Steve have to be rational and ethical on Vatican Council II etc, as Catholics, they can review their acceptance of the New Ecumenism, New Theology, New Evangelisation and New Ecclesiology.
What is the theological basis for the New Evangelisation in the parih ? Steve must ask.IF VC2 is interpreted rationally there is no known salvation outside the Church. In reality we cannot know of any one saved without faith and the baptism of water. This is something only God could know.So how does the Parish Priest interpret Unitatits Redintigratio, the Decree on Ecumenism in Vatican Council II ? Does the FSSP project UR 3 as a practical exception to extra ecclesianm nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ? Will Steve's son Liam have to accept this irrationality and new doctrine based upon a false premise and misinterpretation of Vatican Council II, to be baptised with water?
The New Theology is based upon the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).To receive the Sacraments from the FSSP priest, will the Skoject family also have to accept the heretical and irrational interpretation of LOHO since the popes do so ?
These are issues that need to be discussed and written about.
FR.NICHOLAS GRUNER WAS PERSECUTED BY THE ECCLESIASTICS : THEY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE FALSE AND RATIONAL PREMISE
Fr.Nicholas Gruner was persecuted by the Rome Vicariate and the Vatican since it was thougist that he should no more affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)after it was contradicted by Vatican Council II, commonly interpeted irrationally(also by Fr.Gruner).The Church no more taught EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed was the view of Cardinal Ratzinger.
Fr.Gruner, John Vennari and Chris Ferrara did not know about the rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II; the false and rational premise, which produced two different conclusions, one traditional and the other non traditional.Neither did the ecclesiastics know this.
Now after over 55 years we know that without the false premise Vatican Council II has a traditional conclusion and is not a break with the past exclusivt theology of the Catholic Church.
Similarly Mother Angelica did not know that VC 2 did not contradict her interpretation of EENS. She followed the bishops.Later she would affirm EENS with the baptism of desire etc being exceptions. This was the same as the SSPX.
But now Jeff Mirus at Trinity Communications and Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture know.They have been informed and they have no response.Yet Trinity Communications, of Jeff Mirus, along with EWTN maintain a propaganda piece on the Internet,titled, 'The Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney by Fr. William Most'.This is political. They are following the money and are taking advantage of the ignorance of the priest, a good apologist, who did not know about the difference between the false and rational premise,when he interpreted Magisterial documents.
DIANA MONTAGNA, PAULO PASQUALUCCI, MARIA GUARINI,ENRICO MARIA RADAELLI,MARCO TOSATTI AND ROBERTO DEI MATTEI ARE MODERNISTS ON VATICAN COUNCIL II
Diana Montagna, Paulo Pascualucci, Enrico Maria Radaelli,Maria Guarini, Marco Tosatti and Roberto dei Mattei are modernists on Vatican Council II.They use the fake premise to interpret the Council as a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).If they did not use this irrational approach they would be Feeneyites on EENS.
They affirm EENS with exceptions. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire are practical exceptions to EENS for them.
They affirm Vatican Council II with exceptions for EENS. Invisible and unknown cases, in 1965-2021, of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, Gs 22 etc, are objective examples of salvation outside the Church and objective exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors.
It is like Michael Voris and Christine Niles at Church Militant TV who say outside the Church there is no salvation and accept Vatican Council II with the false premise, indicating that outside the Church there is salvation.
All the apologists and newscasters on EWTN have to accept and interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.It is obligatory. May be it is the same for Michael Voris too in the Archdiiocese of Detroit.
Steve Skojec at the blog 1Peter 5 has decided to return to interpreting Vatican Council II and all the Creeds and Catechisms with the fake premise.Some of his sponsors have stopped sending their regular cheques.
Every one is following the official modernism.
The Athanasius Creed says outside the Church there is no salvation and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney says outside the Church there is salvation and every one does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This is heresy and schism with a false premise and it is magisterial for the present two popes, the Lefebvrists and the cardinals and bishops.Official modernism.
SSPX PRIESTS IN ALBANO ITALY NEED TO ANNOUNCE A LIST OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND PARTIES WHOM THEY APPROVE: VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS TO BE INTERPRETED RATIONALLY
The SSPX priests in Albano, Lazio,Italy have still to announce tht there must be no separation of Church and State in national politics according to traditional Catholic theology and Vatican Council II( interpreted rationally). So as Catholic priests they recommend a list of political parties and candidates for whom to vote and whom to avoid.They would also have this list for the Mayor's election in Rome and the Councillors in Municpalities of Rome, Lazio.
Of course this is not possible. Since the SSPX accepts the error of Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which was repeated in Vatican Council II. Since there are exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulal salus(EENS), there is the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc.So they reject traditional EENS with no exceptions, upon which was based theologically the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and the non separation of Church and State.
So before they could announce a list of approved candidates they would need to get their doctrinal house in order on Church documents, including Vatican Council II.
The Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics can be proclaimed with Vatican Council II interpreted with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
With the rational premise, inference and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II the non separation of the leftist Church and the Leftist State, ends.
With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally we can no more separate the Catholic Church from national politics.The people must be told that the Catholic Church teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7) and so membership in the Church is needed with faith and baptism-to avoid Hell(AG 7).This is the norm for salvation.So to save souls from going to Hell it is important that the Government and political parties,be Catholic.They are Catholic when they interpret Vatican Council II rationally and support Tradition. So Catholics should only vote for political candidates who interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so in harmony with Tradition and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics.
LOUIE VERRECCHIO IS A TYPICAL LEFEBVRIST MODERNIST AND HE CALLS FOR AN OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Louie Verrecchio is critical of modernists and calls for an Oath Against Modernism but he is a modernist when he interprets Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with a false premise.He is a typical modernist like the liberals and Lefebvrists.
Pope Pius XII was a modernist. The Letter of the Holy Offfice 1949 is modernism.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire in our reality, be visible examples of Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ? How can unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance in 1949-2021, be known exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation? The LOHO is heretical and schismatic and is officially accepted by conservatives and liberals.It was referenced in Vatican Council II(LG 16) and approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria sj in two papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican.Fr.Rahner placed it in the Denzinger.LOHO created a New Theology in the Catholic Church.It states outside the Church there is known salvation.This is the New Theology of the liberals and Lefebvrists.
Lefebvrists are modernists in theology and doctrine. They go for the Latin Mass and allow themselves to be called traditionalists.They are an asset for modernist liberals.
The website Whispers of Restoration, supported by Peter Kwasniewski, are modernists on the old catechisms.They interpert the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise. So all the interpretations of the old Catechisms are skewered.
Thomas Pink and Peter Kwasniewski are critical of the 'official theology' but they use the official theology to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, and are not aware of it.Thomas Pink has still not identified the precise sourse of what he calls the 'New Theology'.
The New Theology for me comes from Pope Pius XII's error in the LOHO.The seeds of the error were there in the Baltimore Catechism.The Americanists placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section of the Catechism, as if the baptism of desire was visible and could be administered like the baptism of water.
So the Catholic Church is divided today.Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake which is heretical but most of the Church considers it Magisterial.
There are now two theologies being used in the interpretation of Magisterial documents, one is rational and the other irrational. The irrational version comes to us from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.It's also official schism.
Those who attend the Latin Mass and do not use the offficial New Theology of 1949 are considered divisive.Since these priests offer the Traditional Latin Mass without the New Theology.
The SSPX, FSSP and the present two popes consider the LOHO Magisterial. I don't.How can LOHO reject the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors by considering unknown cases of BOD and I.i as being objective exceptions to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology? The Athanasius Creed and extra ecclesiam nulla salus are Magisterial for me and they do not mention any exceptions.LOHO is not magisterial.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and contradict the past Magisterium.
Louie Verrecchio affirms LOHO and rejects Feeneyite EENS. He affirms LOHO and rejects the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.The ecumenism of return has exceptions.Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, in Vatican Council II, has exceptions for EENS, for him.-He affirms LOHO and postulates exceptions for the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q).
We need an Oath Against Modernism which prohibits the common use of the false premise.
WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE INSTEAD OF THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION ?
Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of the hermeneutic of continuity?
For Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition for me it has a continuity.
Rorate Caeili posts articles by Don Pietro Leone since he is politically correct with the Left and interpets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.
Where does the Council contradict an ecumenism of return to the Catholic faith ? He could not preseent even one example.
Unitatis Redintigatio refers to only hypothetical and speculative cases. They exist only in our mind.They cannot be practical exceptions to the past ecumenism of return based upon the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Where does the Council contradist EENS and is a rupture with Tradition ? Don Pietro Leone and Rorate Caeili could not present even one example.
LG 8, LG 14,lG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc cannot be practical exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS in 1965-2021.They don't exist in our reality. There are no such cases.
Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of the hermeneutic of continuity?
POPE FRANCIS AND POPE BENEDICT ARE NOT MAGISTERIAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II SINCE THEY USE A FALSE PREMISE TO INTERPRET THE COUNCIL : THIS CAN BE AVOIDED AND THE COUNCIL WILL BE MAGISTERIAL
Pope Francis and Pope Benedicr are not Magisterial on Vatican Council II since they use a false premise to interpret the Council.This can be avoided and their conclusion would be traditional, affirming ecclesiocentrism in the Catholic Church.Then the interpretation of the Council would be Magisterial. It would be in harmony with the past Magisterium over the centuries.Now because of the false premise their theology is Christocentric without the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology.There is a rupture with Tradition.The rupture is aritifical and can be avoided.
How can Pope Francis and Pope Benedict be Magisterial on Vatican Council II when they interpret LG 8,LG 14, LG 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc irrationally, to create an artificial rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q) etc)?
They need to correct the error and then re-interpret the Council rationally.The cardinals and bishops need to do the same.
There was an objective mistake made by Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Offie 1949. The error was repeated at Vatican Council II and not corrected by the popes since Paul VI.
ALL THE BOOKS ON VATICAN COUNCIL II IN GENERAL WRITTEN BY PRO SSPX AUTHORS ARE WRITTEN WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND NEED TO BE PHASED OUT
All the books on Vatican Council II written by pro SSPX authors, are written with a false premise. They need to be phased out.The books could have been written without the false premise and inference and then the conclusion would have been traditional.
Future books can be written on Vatican Council II interpreted with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.There will be a hermeneutic of continuity with the past.
The pro- SSPX books on Vatican Council II which are contaminated with this error include those by authors Christina Siccardi, Paulo Pasqualucci, Roberto dei Mattei, Diana Montagna, Maria Guarini and Enrico M.Radaeilli.
There have been hundreds of thousands of books worldwide on Vatican Council II, which were written with an irrational premise to produce a fake non traditional conclusion.This could have been avoided if the authors were informed about the mistake and avoided it.
The official interpretation of Vatican Council II is non Magisterial since its theological foundation is based upon an objective and empirical error which could have been avoided.The Holy Spirit cannot make a factual error and contradict the past Magisterium. There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church.
With the fake or rational premise, the understanding of Vatican Council II changes, in the Church.
CARDINALS KASPER AND KOCH'S INTERPRETATION OF UNITATIS REDINTIG
RATIO IS IRRATIONAL : WHY SHOULD THE WHOLE CHURCH FOLLOW THEM ?
Don Pietro Leone's report on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiiam nulla salus(EENS) quoted text from Vatican Council II( Unitatis Redintigratio) which allegedly contradicted EENS.For him they contradicted EENS and an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church for other Christians.This was modernism but he put the blame on the Council.
Why do Catholics have to interpret Unitatis Redinitgratio, the Decree on Ecumenism, with the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition(EENS etc) instead of the the hermeneutic of continuity?
Why could not UR 3 simply refer to hypothetical cases and so not be practical exceptions to EENS in 2021? I can choose to look at UR 3 as not being an exception to EENS.
When UR is interpreted as an exception to EENS it is irrational and non traditiona. It is modernism.Don Pietro Leone is a modernist.
Similarly Louie Verrecchio chooses to interpret UR 3 as a rupture with the past ecumenism.I have pointed it out to him quite a few times.This is irrational but he still keeps on doing the same thing.This is modernism and he once called for an Oath Against Modernism.
UR 3 can only be hypothetical. There is no other choice.If someone is saved in another religion without faith and the baptism of water it would only be known to God.So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance never ever were practical examples of salvation outside the Church.They never were exceptions to Tradition(EENS etc).
Cardinals Kasper and Koch interpret Unitatis Redintigratio as supporting the New Ecumenism. Why should the whole Church follow them? They are irrational. It is dishonest to cite theoretical cases from Unitatis Redintigratio, which exist only in our mind, and then project them as being practical exceptions to EENS in 1965-2021.There really is no new theology to support a new ecumenism.Their life line is interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally.
Similarly the John Paul II Institute Ecumenical Chair at the Angelicum University, Rome and the Russell Berry Foundation sponsorsship program are based upon a theoloogically non existing ecumenism.Their life line is interpreting Unitatis Redintigratio, irrationally.
There is no new revelation in the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise( confusing what is invisible as being visible) and then projecting them as exceptions to Tradition is a false inference.There is no new revelation to support the New Ecumenism or a developme of doctrine.
WHY DO CATHOLICS HAVE TO INTERPRET UNITATIS REDINTIGRATIO, DECREE ON ECUMENISM, VATICAN COUNCIL II LIKE CARDINALS KASPER AND KOCH ? : THE WHOLE CHURCH IS FOLLOWING THEIR ERROR
Why do Catholics have to interpret UR with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of continuity with Tradition?
On Rorate Caeili, Don Pietro Leone’s report on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) cites Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, to contradict the dogma EENS and support a New Ecumenism.For him UR has exceptions for EENS.It contradicts an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.So there is a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
For me, UR refers to only hypothetical and speculative cases which exist only in our mind.It would be irrational to consider them objective and practical examples of being saved outside the Church.So for me they are not exceptions to EENS. UR is not a rupture with Tradition.I am interpreting Vatican Council Ii with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Why do Catholics have to interpret UR with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of continuity with Tradition?
Why cannot citations from UR simply refer to hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict EENS in 2021 ?I can choose to look at UR as not being an exception to EENS.Other Catholics can do the same.
Similarly Louie Verrecchio chooses to interpret UR as a rupture with the past ecumenism, in his blog posts.I have pointed it out to him.This is irrational but he still keeps on doing the same thing.The use of a false premise to interpret Vatican Council Ii,is modernism.
UR 3 for example can only be hypothetical.There is no other choice . If someone is saved in another religion without Catholic faith and the baptism of water, it would be known only to God.
Also Cardinals Kasper and Koch interpret Unitatis Redintigratio in Vatican Council II as supporting the New Ecumenism. Why should the whole Church follow them?They are irrational. It is dishonest to cite theoretical cases , referred to in UR, and them project the mas practical exceptions to EENS in 1965-2021.There really is no new theology to support the New Ecuemism, the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger or the development of doctrine of Popes Benedict and Francis.
Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise cannot be a new revelation. It cannot also be a new ecumenism. It is simple dishonesty.
IF THE GOOD PRIESTS DO NOT RENEGE ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH THE NON CHRISTIAN POLICE PRESENT IN THE CHURCH WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM AND THEN THEY WILL BE SENT BACK TO BRAZIL
In the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, they do not interpret Vatican Council II dogmatic.The priests use the false premise to interpret the Council as a rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc).This non Magisterial interpretation, with an irrationality, is considered Magisterial.
They also give the Eucharsist to non Christians and Catholic women who are living with non Christians who are outside the Church.,
Then they say Jesus died for all in a statement which is incomplete. Instead they should state that Jesus died for all but to receive salvation all need to believe in Jesus as Saviour ,who saves us from Hell.All need to believe in Him and live his teachings in the Catholic Church, with faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).This is needed for salvation from Hell. The priest does not say this. There are non Chrisitan police, present in the Church, during Mass in Italian, who control what the priest says.
This parish in which I have been living for many years, is in the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Rome and the bishop was until recently, Gino Reali.The diocese is now Bishop Gianrico Ruzza, Bishop of Civittavecchia- Tarquinia, Lazio.
In this parish at Santa Maria di Nazareth,Casalotti, Pope Francis had installed the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who offer Mass only in Italian. This was after he closed down the seminary of Fr. Stefano Manelli f.i.But last year, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate were asked to leave the parish and the seminary.Since the Comitato dell Immaculata, a lay organisation of Fr. Stefano Manelli, legally took back possesssion of the land and property. In their agreement with Bishop Gino Reali, they asked that the Franciscans leave.
They had to leave even though Pope Francis wanted them there.The liberal community of Franciscans approved by Pope Francis, were interestingly made to leave by the conservative lay organisation.Can that lay organisation ensure that Catholic orthodoxy is taught and practised in the parish, where they have an influence ?
Yesterday at morning Mass on the feast of the Sacred Heart the Joselitos Christo priest said that we must love every one.He does not tell the non Christians their fate if they die in another religion. This is not love.
The Comitato dell Immaculata over look this lack of coherence in the parish.
If the good priests do not renege on the Catolic Faith, the non Christian police will complain about them and then the Joselitos Christo priests could be sent back to Brazil.
Post a Comment