ARCHBISHOP VIGANO INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND SO THERE IS A RUPTURE WITH OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.
Archbishop Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement on Vatican Council II. He interpreted the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and Associated Press and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version. If the editors of his book, Brian McCall and Maike Hickson, used the TWO COLUMN approach to view Vatican Council II, they would cease to be Lefebvrists like Vigano. If the interpreted Vatican Council II with the RATIONAL PREMISE, RATIONAL INFERENCE AND TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION, they would emerge Feeneyites on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed( Feeneyite-with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Feeneyite-with no known exceptions). But they have to follow Archbishop Carlo Vigano's approach to Vatican Council II which is also that of Cardinal Claudio Hummes when he offers Holy Mass in Brazil, in the language of the Amazonians, and he will interpret the Council, with the fake premise to reject the First Commandment,’thou shalt have no other God beside me’.
This will also be the approach of Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi at the Sacred Heart Major seminary, Detroit, USA and Scott Hahn and Alan Schreck at the Theology Department of the University of Steubenville, USA.They will be at Mass in Engish without the past exclusivist ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is interpreted with the fake premise, creating a New Theology, which says outside the Church there is salvation, even among those who do not know or do not believe in Jesus Christ. Scott Hahn, Alan Schreck, Robert Fastiggi and Ralph Martin have decided not to discuss this issue since they are obliged to teach Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake reasoning. It’s a political interpretation of the Council which creates schism with the past Magisterium and the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Hummes, like Vigano, is not telling the Brazilian Catholics, that there is true worship in only the Catholic Church when Vatican Council II is interpeted rationally.
At the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with the fake premise and concluded that there is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He criticized the SSPX for beleiving that outside the Church there is no salvation, since, he said, that they do not accept Vatican Council II. He was referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise. The SSPX also interprets the Council with the fake premise, like Cardinal Hummes, but then rejects the non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre did the same. So the FSSP, at Dijon, France, made of the same cloth will not affirm Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and tell Bishop Minnerath, that he is wrong in his writings to support a ‘theology of religious pluralism’ . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II. There are no personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2021.Practically also, we cannot meet any such person.So how can the bishop propose a theology of religions when there is no known salvation outside the Church to contradit Feeneyite EENS ? The theology of religions which is the subject of some of his books was condemned by Pope John Paul II ( Notification, CDF, Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj, 2001). Archbishop Vigano and the SSPX supporters have never responded to so many reports on this blog over a long time, which refers to them. Well, what are they going to say? That they interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Davies ?
Did Pope Francis issue Traditionis Custode by confusing speculative and practical theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ? Yes
That was a good program on outside the Church there is no salvation. I was surprised to see it on the JHW show.It was focused on the book of Eric Sammons so it did not touch the subject of Vatican Council II not being in conflict with outside the Church there is no salvation. This really is related to Traditionis Custode.Since Pope Francis only permits the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass for those priests, who interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and so reject Tradition. This point needs to be brought out in future interviews.Could there be a Vatican Council II which is not a rupture with outside the Church there is no salvation? Is there a Magisterial and non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II, a rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II ? And if there is such a thing then did Pope Francis use the irrational and non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II ? If there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with the false premise and the other without it, then there are presently two interpretations of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance ? This would mean the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance , visible would be exceptions to EENS and BOD and I.I while invisible would not be exceptions to EENS.Invisible people cannot be practical exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation. So we could still have the strict interpretation of EENS with a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.This is one of two possibilities. This would suggest that the interpretation of outside the Church no salvation( extra ecclesiam nulla salus) of John Henry Weston and that of Eric Sammons, could also be with the irrational premise. Brother Andre Marie MICM at the St. Benedict Center, NH in an interview with Timoth Flanders of the MeaningofCatholic.com (see above ) Youtube shows that he understands the different between speculative and practical theology which is being confused here. This issue of the confusion between speculative and practical theology is there in the Church when Pope Francis cites Vatican Council II. It could also be the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Sammons and Weston. Did Pope Francis issue Traditionis Custode by confusing speculative and practical theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ? Yes.-Lionel Andrades
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston.
In the their recent interview Sammons cited the Bible to show that Jesus and the Catholic Church, membership in the Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation. For example, on the Road to Damascus , Jesus says, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me ?” Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus identified with the Church, the Catholic Church.This is the Church which has given us the Bible, from which Sammon was quoting.
In Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) it is written that all need faith and baptism for salvation. The word All is there.With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, being hypothetical and invisible in the present times(2021) cannot be practical exceptions to AG 7 or outside the Church there is no salvation(CCC 846).There are not practical exceptions to the word 'all'.
The baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), being only speculative and not formally known examples of salvations. They never were practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits of his time.
So this is a Vatican Council II with 1 ) LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc invisible and hypothetical only ( as I see it) and then 2) there is the common interpretation with LG 8, LG 14 , UR 3 etc seen as physically visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and baptism.
Sammons and Weston have to show that when popes and cardinals choose the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II it cannot be Magisterial. The Holy Spirit will not call something invisible as being visible and then create a New Theology based upon this error in observation. An empirical error of observation.
Yet the New Evangelisation and New Ecumenism is based upon this error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So there is a Vatican Council II in harmony with outside the Church there is no salvation and there is a Vatican Council II which is a rupture with Tradition in general and in partcular the salvation-dogma.
In Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis was interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc being physically visible and personally known cases in 1965-2021.This is a major mistake.This is irrational.It is deceptive. If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.The norm for salvation in the Catholic Church has always been faith and the baptism of water.The norm is not LG 8,LG 16 etc.The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not the norm.
There is no Extraordinary Way of Salvation known to us practically. If there were exceptions for the norm it would only be known to God.Here SSPX priests make a mistake when they refer to the Extraordinary Way of salvation.This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation and cites BOD and I.I as practical exceptions.
So when we confuse what is theoretical as being practical, it becomes irrational. So the false premise then creates a non traditional conclusion, which is not Magisterial, even if it is supported by the popes.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and the popes and bishops must choose the rational option.We then go back to traditional mission-doctrines.We read Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium, the entire text,differently. The red ( passages which refer to the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance) are not exceptions to the blue ( passages which support orthodoxy). –Lionel Andrades
JULY 30, 2021 In John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
In John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
They have not discussed how there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and how Traditional Custode is referring to the irrtational one.
Pope Benedict also wanted the Society of St. Pius X and the traditionalists to interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise instead of the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.With the false premise there is a rupture with EENS. Without the rational premise there is no rupture but a continuity with Tradition.
There is Decree of Prohbitions placed against the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, NH. USA by the Diocese of Manchester and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.They want the SBC to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 847-848 Invincible ignorance ) with fake premise and so create a rupture with traditional outside the Church there is no salvation.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Fr. Davide Pagaliarani,did not intervene or comment on this doctrinal issue.Since they interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with a false premise and so they create a rupture with EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century, at the Traditional Latin Mass.
These are all points which were not talked about in the interview and the comments on the book written by Eric Sammons.
In the interview they had to show that the liturgy is not responsible for the break with outside the Church there is no salvation and there is a general misunderstanding about the Latin Mass.
Even at Mass in the vernacular if Vatican Council II is
interpreted rationally, there is no rupture with the
Catechism of the Catholic Church(24Q,27Q) and the
dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 30, 2021
How to understand the teaching 'outside the Church there is no salvation' https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/how-to-understand-teaching-outside.html
Unfortunately Mr. Sammons left a loophole by saying we can hope Protestants are saved. Pope Eugene iv said about heretics ( i.e. Protestants ) "...none of these...can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire..." the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. To say we hope Protestants are saved even if they do not before the end of their life enter the Catholic Church is to deny the dogma and give false hope to non Catholics!
Good up until he made the pitch for Bitcoin.
ReplyDeleteARCHBISHOP VIGANO INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND SO THERE IS A RUPTURE WITH OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement on Vatican Council II. He interpreted the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and Associated Press and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version.
If the editors of his book, Brian McCall and Maike Hickson, used the TWO COLUMN approach to view Vatican Council II, they would cease to be Lefebvrists like Vigano.
If the interpreted Vatican Council II with the RATIONAL PREMISE, RATIONAL INFERENCE AND TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION, they would emerge Feeneyites on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed( Feeneyite-with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Feeneyite-with no known exceptions).
But they have to follow Archbishop Carlo Vigano's approach to Vatican Council II which is also that of Cardinal Claudio Hummes when he offers Holy Mass in Brazil, in the language of the Amazonians, and he will interpret the Council, with the fake premise to reject the First Commandment,’thou shalt have no other God beside me’.
This will also be the approach of Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi at the Sacred Heart Major seminary, Detroit, USA and Scott Hahn and Alan Schreck at the Theology Department of the University of Steubenville, USA.They will be at Mass in Engish without the past exclusivist ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is interpreted with the fake premise, creating a New Theology, which says outside the Church there is salvation, even among those who do not know or do not believe in Jesus Christ.
Scott Hahn, Alan Schreck, Robert Fastiggi and Ralph Martin have decided not to discuss this issue since they are obliged to teach Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake reasoning.
It’s a political interpretation of the Council which creates schism with the past Magisterium and the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Hummes, like Vigano, is not telling the Brazilian Catholics, that there is true worship in only the Catholic Church when Vatican Council II is interpeted rationally.
At the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with the fake premise and concluded that there is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He criticized the SSPX for beleiving that outside the Church there is no salvation, since, he said, that they do not accept Vatican Council II. He was referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise.
The SSPX also interprets the Council with the fake premise, like Cardinal Hummes, but then rejects the non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre did the same.
So the FSSP, at Dijon, France, made of the same cloth will not affirm Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and tell Bishop Minnerath, that he is wrong in his writings to support a ‘theology of religious pluralism’ . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II. There are no personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2021.Practically also, we cannot meet any such person.So how can the bishop propose a theology of religions when there is no known salvation outside the Church to contradit Feeneyite EENS ? The theology of religions which is the subject of some of his books was condemned by Pope John Paul II ( Notification, CDF, Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj, 2001).
Archbishop Vigano and the SSPX supporters have never responded to so many reports on this blog over a long time, which refers to them. Well, what are they going to say? That they interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Davies ?
Did Pope Francis issue Traditionis Custode by confusing speculative and practical theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ? Yes
ReplyDeleteThat was a good program on outside the Church there is no salvation. I was surprised to see it on the JHW show.It was focused on the book of Eric Sammons so it did not touch the subject of Vatican Council II not being in conflict with outside the Church there is no salvation.
This really is related to Traditionis Custode.Since Pope Francis only permits the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass for those priests, who interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and so reject Tradition.
This point needs to be brought out in future interviews.Could there be a Vatican Council II which is not a rupture with outside the Church there is no salvation? Is there a Magisterial and non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II, a rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
And if there is such a thing then did Pope Francis use the irrational and non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
If there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with the false premise and the other without it, then there are presently two interpretations of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance ? This would mean the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance , visible would be exceptions to EENS and BOD and I.I while invisible would not be exceptions to EENS.Invisible people cannot be practical exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.
So we could still have the strict interpretation of EENS with a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.This is one of two possibilities.
This would suggest that the interpretation of outside the Church no salvation( extra ecclesiam nulla salus) of John Henry Weston and that of Eric Sammons, could also be with the irrational premise.
Brother Andre Marie MICM at the St. Benedict Center, NH in an interview with Timoth Flanders of the MeaningofCatholic.com (see above ) Youtube shows that he understands the different between speculative and practical theology which is being confused here.
This issue of the confusion between speculative and practical theology is there in the Church when Pope Francis cites Vatican Council II. It could also be the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Sammons and Weston.
Did Pope Francis issue Traditionis Custode by confusing speculative and practical theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ? Yes.-Lionel Andrades
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston.
ReplyDeleteIn the their recent interview Sammons cited the Bible to show that Jesus and the Catholic Church, membership in the Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation.
For example, on the Road to Damascus , Jesus says, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me ?” Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus identified with the Church, the Catholic Church.This is the Church which has given us the Bible, from which Sammon was quoting.
In Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) it is written that all need faith and baptism for salvation. The word All is there.With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, being hypothetical and invisible in the present times(2021) cannot be practical exceptions to AG 7 or outside the Church there is no salvation(CCC 846).There are not practical exceptions to the word 'all'.
The baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), being only speculative and not formally known examples of salvations. They never were practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits of his time.
So this is a Vatican Council II with 1 ) LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc invisible and hypothetical only ( as I see it) and then 2) there is the common interpretation with LG 8, LG 14 , UR 3 etc seen as physically visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and baptism.
Sammons and Weston have to show that when popes and cardinals choose the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II it cannot be Magisterial. The Holy Spirit will not call something invisible as being visible and then create a New Theology based upon this error in observation. An empirical error of observation.
Yet the New Evangelisation and New Ecumenism is based upon this error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So there is a Vatican Council II in harmony with outside the Church there is no salvation and there is a Vatican Council II which is a rupture with Tradition in general and in partcular the salvation-dogma.
In Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis was interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc being physically visible and personally known cases in 1965-2021.This is a major mistake.This is irrational.It is deceptive. If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.The norm for salvation in the Catholic Church has always been faith and the baptism of water.The norm is not LG 8,LG 16 etc.The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not the norm.
There is no Extraordinary Way of Salvation known to us practically. If there were exceptions for the norm it would only be known to God.Here SSPX priests make a mistake when they refer to the Extraordinary Way of salvation.This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation and cites BOD and I.I as practical exceptions.
So when we confuse what is theoretical as being practical, it becomes irrational. So the false premise then creates a non traditional conclusion, which is not Magisterial, even if it is supported by the popes.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and the popes and bishops must choose the rational option.We then go back to traditional mission-doctrines.We read Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium, the entire text,differently. The red ( passages which refer to the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance) are not exceptions to the blue ( passages which support orthodoxy). –Lionel Andrades
JULY 30, 2021
ReplyDeleteIn John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
In John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
They have not discussed how there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and how Traditional Custode is referring to the irrtational one.
Pope Benedict also wanted the Society of St. Pius X and the traditionalists to interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise instead of the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.With the false premise there is a rupture with EENS. Without the rational premise there is no rupture but a continuity with Tradition.
There is Decree of Prohbitions placed against the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, NH. USA by the Diocese of Manchester and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.They want the SBC to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 847-848 Invincible ignorance ) with fake premise and so create a rupture with traditional outside the Church there is no salvation.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Fr. Davide Pagaliarani,did not intervene or comment on this doctrinal issue.Since they interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with a false premise and so they create a rupture with EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century, at the Traditional Latin Mass.
These are all points which were not talked about in the interview and the comments on the book written by Eric Sammons.
In the interview they had to show that the liturgy is not responsible for the break with outside the Church there is no salvation and there is a general misunderstanding about the Latin Mass.
Even at Mass in the vernacular if Vatican Council II is
interpreted rationally, there is no rupture with the
Catechism of the Catholic Church(24Q,27Q) and the
dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 30, 2021
How to understand the teaching 'outside the Church there is no salvation'
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/how-to-understand-teaching-outside.html
Unfortunately Mr. Sammons left a loophole by saying we can hope Protestants are saved. Pope Eugene iv said about heretics ( i.e. Protestants ) "...none of these...can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire..." the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. To say we hope Protestants are saved even if they do not before the end of their life enter the Catholic Church is to deny the dogma and give false hope to non Catholics!
ReplyDelete