Pope Francis' Motu Proprio is a very welcome and long overdue corrective to the schismatic tendencies and elitist movements that have taken their authority from Ratzinger/Benedict's idiosyncratic liturgical fantasy, Summorum Pontificium. The primacy and express will of Vatican II has been restored. 1570 will have to fit into and be governed by that historical time frame.
Most Bishops will read the new Directive. Identify it as an outburst of an old man at a family gathering, who is still seeking relevance. They will say, "Bless his heart". And then promptly ignore it and proceed on as before.
"Most Bishops will read the new Directive' I wouldn't have a bet on that one. Pope Francis spent three years consulting with the world bishops who, overwhelmingly, advised him that the followers of the 1570 Pius V Mass, were in the high management department, faddist neurotics, clergy dependent adolescents and extremely divisive. They have to make a choice now as to whether they remain in the Catholic Church of Vatican II or do a time warp into Trent where they can attend liturgical operettas to their hearts content.
Bergoglio acted Ultra Vires. He does not have the authority to abrogate a sacred rite and his action also calls into question the fullness of truth about the Communion of Saints.
Countless are the numbers of saints who have been spiritually nourished by The Real Mass but Bergoglio argues it is a defective and even disruptive rite that leads to disunity.
It is clear the 60s Synod was unlike any Ecumenical Council that preceded it and it is not binding despite what the revolutionaries claim.
For those who think this is about the worst that could happen - consider:
Bergoglio could issue another Motu Propiro declaring that he is restoring the ancient and original practice of having a Pope choose his successor and that there will no longe be the necessity of a conclave because men make errors whereas he was chosen by God to set right what has long been wrong in the Church.
He might even claim he is doing that to save money better used to supply his field hospital - think how much it costs to fly all of the cardinals to Rome and to wine and dine them...
Attended the FSSP Mass this morning. Letter from the Bishop was read. Nothing will change. Proceed as you have been. Concluding with a great big "Thank you".
Max: Don't know where you got your information that the world's Bishops "overwhelmingly" advised the Pope to perform this action. I suspect that you pulled it out of your ass. Like Bergoglio pulled this Moto, out of his. It has been only 48 hours and even the French Bishops are diplomatically telling him to dry up.
"It has been only 48 hours and even the French Bishops are diplomatically telling him to dry up."
Anon. 12:44-----Is this true? I read of a dozen or so USA bishops basically saying this to the ol' man Bergoglio, but the French? Is so that's great news. Read on several sites that this is the worst thing Bergoglio could have done. He doesn't know the storm he's unleashed. It'll ruin him and his people.
Benedict XVI unintentionally provided the followers of the dead schismatic Lefebvre with the 'authority' to spread and promote the schism which, over the last 14-15 years, has come to claim the kind of elitist exceptionalism that is a companion of faddism and which typifies the narcissistic attitude of the adolescent. Pope Francis is now inviting the teenagers to grow up. Some will, most will be stuck in reactive 1570 AD. That was politics not evangelism. There will be no mass dissent from Pope Francis' Motu Proprio because he wrote it with the support of the world's bishops.
The suppression of Benedict's 2007 sop to the Lefebvrists pales into insignificance when one sees what he wanted all along, a hybrid Mass, half vernacular, half Latin! See Cardinal Ratzinger's 2003 letter to schismatic Dr Heinz-Lothar Barth of Bonn: https://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/a-frightening-l.html
One of the faux heroes of the 'Back to Trent' fad is entrepreneur John Zuhlsdorf, lately expelled from the diocese of Madison for politicizing the Sacraments and doing an Altman. Zuhlsdorf doesn't really give a hoot in hell about the Latin Mass or anything for that matter, except for himself. He's a grifter, a scammer and has been from the very start. His response to the Pope's suppression of Benedict's autocratic move in 2007 is to set up a phony, 'novena' which is a pious front for the real business and that is to sell T-shirts, mugs etc to fund his gourmet tastes and crass consumerism.
Pope Francis writes, in the letter, says Una Voce International’s representative Dr.Joseph Shaw,that the use of the 1962 Missal is
often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/who-is-pope-francis-punishing
This is true. I agree with Pope Francis.However he is not aware that Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with a rational premise, inference and conclusion otherwise, with the common false premise, it has to be a betrayal of Tradition and the « true Church ». Since with the false premise, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q,27Q) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Jesuits in the 16th century are rejected.So a false Church is created. (from the blog Eucharist and Mission -Lionel's blog)
God, the Pope, Vatican II and the People of God don't give a rat's ass about you rational premises, inference and conclusions, Lionel. None of them are bound by this insane obsessive - compulsive fixation of yours.
LOOKING AT TRADITIONIS CUSTODE POSITIVELY A papal Document which interprets Vatican Council II with a rational premise, inference and conclusion would be Magisterial. It would be in harmony with the Magisterium of the Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers.Traditionis Custode with its unethical interpretation of the Council with a false premise, to create a rupture with ‘Tradition’ and ‘the true Church’ is unethical and dishonest.It cannot be Catholic. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and then reject the Magisterium of the centuries. This document has what Pope Benedict calls the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition, the popes and saints and Magisterium of the past. It is a political document approved by the Italian President Sergio Mattarella, the Comunists and Masons. Satan would not like Catholics to pray. He would not want priests to offer Holy Mass. Nicole Winfield, correspondent of the Associated Press and Heidi Schlumf, editor of the National Catholic Reporter(NCR) still interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise instead of the rational premise, which does not produce a rupture with Catholic Tradition, the ‘true Church’. Even Michael Sean Winters when commenting on Traditionis Custode in the NCR, knows that the Council can be interpreted rationally but does not do so. He knows that if LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are seen as only hypothetical and theoretical cases in 2021, then there is no conflicT with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.Now he and his family still go for the Novus Ordo Mass and interpret Vatican Council II irrationally to create a heretical version of the Creeds and Catechisms in a paralled Church which is not Catholic, not the ‘true Church’. Traditionalists could object to Micheal Winter’s going for Mass while he rejects the Athanasius Creed and reinterprets other Creeds, with the false premise, needed to put aside Tradition.His rejection of the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past Catechisms is a rupture with the popes and saints of the past, who did not use a falsehood to deny the Deposit of the Faith, for political-left reasons. POSITIVE What is positive about TC is that it indicates that we still have the Mass in the vernacular which we can offer with the exclusivist ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century and no one will object and take away this Mass .There would be the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc) when Vatican Council II is accepted and interpreted with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion. (from the blog Eucharist and Mission -Lionel's blog)
@Tancred What kind of split do you think you will see with those that attend the Latin Mass, that will find themselves out in the cold. By that, do you think you will see defections to The Orthodox Church, SSPX, and the various Sedevacantists?
Pope Francis could want the Orthodox Christians, Evangelicals and Lutherans to be considered ‘particular churches’ in the Catholic Church.So the traditionalists ,who do not accept the conclusion of Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise, are an obstacle.
Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.- Letter accompanying Traditionis Custode
At least some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were physically visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and so they wrongly thought, or wanted to think, that there was known salvation outside the Church in 1965.So the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS had become obsolete for them.But now we know that BOD and I.I are always invisible.Always.But in 1965 the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was not lifted.The popes were still saying that BOD and I.I were not invisible cases.
There was a new theology in the Church .It would claim that every one did not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation.Since BOD and I.I were explicit and objective cases for them.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney states that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Cardinal Cushing the Archbishop of Boston approved the Letter. He was then active at Vatican Council II.He too was saying that BOD and I.I were not invisible cases. If they were invisible cases then he and the Jesuits could not say that there were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Cushing removed Fr. Leonard Feeney's priestly faculties and the Jesuits expelled him from the community. Boston College expelled him along with other Catholic professors.So this was something important at that time.
Cardinal Cushing gave us much of Nostra Aetate and in principle assumed hypothetical cases were objective exceptions to EENS. This was a new salvation doctrine in the Church.We still have EENS with exceptions. CONTINUED
So Lumen Gentium 14 says not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church.Those who know and do not enter will go to Hell.Those who are in invincible ignorance and do not ‘know’ could be saved.Being saved in invincible ignorance was an explicit case for them.So the Council indicated that the Orthodox Christians, saved in their religion, and with no need to convert, are ‘particular churches’, in the Catholic Church.This error comes from the now common false premise and New Theology of LOHO and Vatican Council II.It is accepted by the popes.
They make the same mistake with Lumen Gentium 8,’subsists in’,It is as if there are physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church allegedly who are known.This is fantasy.We do not know who is saved where the true Church subsists outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.This is fantasy theology.
Similarly we cannot know of someone saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism, but instead with ‘elements of sanctification and truth’ in other religions (LG 8) or goodwill (GS 22).This could only be known to God if it happened.
But Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) accept this false reasoning and so Traditionis Custode mentions particular churches.
Pope Francis could want the Orthodox Christians, Evangelicals and Lutherans to be considered ‘particular churches’ in the Catholic Church.So the traditionalists ,who do not accept the conclusion of Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise, are an obstacle.
Vatican Council II has an objective error from the LOHO so in this sense it cannot be Magisterial.However if the Council is interpreted without the error, without the false premise, the Council is in harmony with the past Magisterium on their being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.The Council would be in harmony with the Tradition of the traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades (From the blog eucharistandmission )
The Una Voce International statement on Traditionis Custode continues to reject Tradition and promotes the Latin Mass with the new ecclesiology like the liberal bishops in England. So they are probably wondering why is the Latin Mass banned.
Una Voce and the Latin Mass Societies faithfully reject Tradidition when they interpret Vatican Council II, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed and other Creeds, with a false premise, inference and conclusion. In this way a politically correct rupture is created with Catholic Tradition.There is a break with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass.They are part of the parallel Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF OF UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF OF UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed (outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete. Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.
RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston. The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion. CONTINUED
CONTINUED TWO COLUMN APPROACH Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column?
LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either: implicit or explicit for us. hypothetical or known in reality. invisible or visible in the flesh. dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ). subjective or objective. So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column. If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2021 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead-saved are visible. If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition, on other religions and Christian communities and churches. Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.I am an exception. I use the left hand side column. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There are no personally known exceptions to EENS in 2021.If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.So when we meet a non Catholic we know that he is oriented to Hell.Since the norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water.We cannot judge any one as being as exception to the norm.There is no extra ordinary way of salvation known to us humans, in real life. So we can see that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are not magisterial on Vatican Council II. For them to be Magisterial they would have to avoid the false premise and use the rational premise, inference and conclusion, like the popes did over the centuries. -Lionel Andrades http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-jesuits-in-rome-are-using-fake.html
UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISEMENT BEFORE TRADITIONIS CUSTODE
The Una Voce International advertisement in an Italian daily did not say that Pope Francis and the bishops have nothing to fear from the Latin Mass which is offered with the same ecclesiology as the Novus Ordo Mass, when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the false premise, inference and conclusion instead of the rational premise, inference and conclusion. Una Voce in future also will continue to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise and so reject the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was held by the missionaries during the 16th century, when they offered the Traditional Latin Mass. Una Voce would assure the liberal bishops that the ancient Athansius Creed which said all need Catholic faith for salvation has been shelved, Since Una Voce accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, like the popes, in which the BOD and I.I were interpreted with the false premise to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church. Una Voce will continue to cooperate with the cardinals and bishops in interpreting the Nicene and Apostles Creed and all the Catechisms with the fake premise to maintain the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. So in the same spirit of Vatican Council II they will continue to interpret the Council with the common irrationality to reject de fide teachings of the Church and so change the lex orandi and lex credendi in all Rites.-Lionel Andrades (from the blog Eucharist and Mission) (
No, it's just eccentric Lionel endlessly repeating corrupted neo-Scholasticism on steroids. It has nothing to do with God, Jesus Christ, Divine Revelation or the People of God. It's about a kid's game of who's in and who's out. It's amusing for about five minutes and then the triviality of it all becomes evident, and boring.....
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar,Murray and Cushing in 1965 not only changed the Church's teaching on their being exclusive salvation in the Church by using a false premise, but they also mentioned 'particular churches', in other words the Orthodox Christians and Protestants are canonically within the Catholic Church.Now in the Letter which accompanying Traditionis Custode it is mentioned as if this is the 'true Church' and not a paralled Church with Tradition.
Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.- Letter accompanying Traditionis Custode
If they did not interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being explicit and objective cases in the present times ( the red column) they could not also say that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.
It was only by accepting the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO), that Cushing could create Nostra Aetate. He maintained the excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney, who would not say that there were objective cases of the BOD and I.I in our reality. There were none. The BOD and I.I could only be speculative and hypothetical cases.
But Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung and the others knew that this would not work. This would not be enough. To get rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and consider the Orthodox Christians as being within the Catholic Church, they had to project what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit and subjective as being objective. In this way a New Theology was created it said outside the Catholic Church there now is salvation unlike in the past and there is the traditional theology to support it. This was a falsehood.
CONTINUED Since the FSSP and SSPX and many Catholics have rejected Vatican Council II in which LG 8,LG 16 etc are interpreted with an irrational premise and so the traditionalists go back to the traditional sources of the Church, which support the traditional ecclesiology of the Church, the Left identifies the Latin Mass, with the past ecclesiology.But the past ecclesiology is there today with us at even the Novus Ordo Mass if the false premise is not used to interpret BOD and I.I and the Creeds, Catechisms etc.
I do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise so the ecclesiology of the Church before and after the Council is the same. There is no development of doctrine for me since I am not using the New Theology.There is no new revelation in Vatican Council II since the new revelation depended upon the fake premise which I avoid.
I go for Mass in Italian. In my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, before 2003 I would go for the Latin Mass it was offered by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i.The Church was opposite to where I was living.The Latin Mass was prohibited in the parish when the Fransciscan seminary was closed by Pope Francis and restrictions were placed on the religious community.
But for me nothing changed with the Latin Mass not being available in the parish and also the churches nearby.Since I am clear that I must not use a fake premise to change Catholic doctrine as did Rahner, Ratzinger and the rest of them at Vatican Council and earlier during the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston, USA.So there is no theology to support a New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation and New Ecclesiology unless one depends upon the deception at Vatican Council II..-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 16, 2011 PRIESTS WHO OFFER TRIDENTINE-RITE AND NOVUS ORDO MASS AGREE THAT WE DO NOT DEFACTO KNOW A SINGLE CASE OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE: WE HAVE UNITY ON OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/priests-who-offer-tridentine-rite-and.html (From the blog eucharistandmission )
POPE FRANCIS INTEPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FAKE PREMISE SO TRADITIONIS CUSTODE CANNOT BE MAGISTERIAL. HE NEEDS TO PUBLICLY CORRECT THE ERROR. Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a fake premise so Traditionis Custode cannot be Magisterial. He needs to publicly correct the error. Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the red column. Traditionis Custode permits the Latin Mass for communities which interpret the Council with the fake premise.It has banned the Latin Mass because communities in general do not interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise and then accept the false conclusion, as he does according to the blog Eucharist and Mission, the blog of Lionel Andrades a lay man in Rome. This an objective and factual error of his. It is not the action of the Holy Spirit. There is no denial from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) ecclesiastics. They agree with me. The pope and the CDF contradict the past Magisterium. This is schism.Since they interpret Vatican Council II with the red column,the fake premise, their understanding of the Creeds and Catechisms would be a break with Tradition.It would be schismatic and heretical. This is a public scandal, not only for the pope and the CDF but also the cardinals, bishops and priests who accept Traditionis Custode and its false reasoning. Pope Francis and the CDF need to correct their error and announce that they interpet Vatican Council II with the left hand column ( without the false premise) and so the pope had made an error in Traditionis Custode, which cannot be Magisterial, in its present form. With the red column the pope has rejected the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.It does not mention any exceptions and this was how the past Magisterium accepted, it over the centuries.So this is a mortal sin of faith.He is officialy putting aside a Creed. Those who cooperate with the pope on this error are cooperating with the sin. In a statement on Traditionis Custode, the FSSP, Institude of Christ the King, Una Voce International etc, have all extended their cooperation and obedience, to the pope, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the error. John Henry Weston at Life Site News and Michael Voris at Church Militant TV are not reporting on this issue and neither are they interpreting Vatican Council II with the blue column ( without the false premise). I interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise ( blue column ) so Vatican Council II (AG 7) supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), for me.It is in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (without exceptions) and the Athanasius Creed (without known exceptions). Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson,Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, Fr. Nevus Macello op, the apologist John Martignoni and diocesan priests in Rome also choose the blue column, like me. If the FSSP priests in France accept and interpret Vatican Council II with the blue column the bishops and the CDF may still not allow them to offer the Latin Mass.They have to accept and interpret Vatican Council II and the Creeds and Catechisms, with the red column to be approved by Pope Francis. Will not their Mass be a sacrilege unless they officially correct the scandal ? Will not those who attend their Mass and receive the Eucharist be cooperating in the sacrilege? Would it be the same for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict ? Would their Mass be a sacrilege since they have changed the meaning of the Creeds and Catechisms, have interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally,rejected the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed, in public.-Lionel Andrades http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/pope-francis-interprets-vatican-council.html
July 29, 2021 Pope Francis is not magisterial on Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode: Mundalein seminary and Bishop Robert Barron must acknowledge the error
The Mundalein seminary, Chicago interprets Vatican Council with the false premise instead of the rational option and there is no comment from them or Bishop Robert Barron and the apologists at Word of Fire.
According to Vatican Council II, Rahm Emmanuel the former Mayor of Chicago and Biden’s Ambassador to Japan, is oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).He does not have it.Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846 under the sub title Outside the Church no salvation.
With hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II there are no objective exceptions to AG 7 in 1965-2021.We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church.There are no practical cases of being saved as referenced in LG 8,LG 14 etc.No one in Chicago knew of someone saved outside the Church without faith and baptism .
There are no known cases of people in Heaven with the baptism of desire(BOD) or invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2021.
Cardinal Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago appointed by Pope Francis, like the faculty at Mundalein seminary continues to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so remains politically correct with the Left.
But this is unethical and not Catholic.
I accept the BOD and I.I as always being hypothetical.The book, Bread of Life, indicates that they were also hypothetical for Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I do not have to reject BOD and I.I ( speculative always) to affirm ‘the strict interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).BOD and I.I can only be speculative and never objective for us human beings.So being theoretical it is compatible with EENS and the need for all to practically have faith and the baptism of water to avoid the fires of Hell.
So BOD and I.I never ever were an issue.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) made it an issue by confusing what is invisible(BOD, I.I) as being visible.
Fr. Leonard Feeney’s excommunication was lifted without him having to recant.The CDF knew that it had made a mistake.Since the Athanasius Creed states, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that all need Catholic faith for salvation.This was the Creed of the Catholic Church for centuries.
Cardinal Cupich and Mundalein seminary could acknowledge that Pope Francis is not Magisterial when he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode were issued with this error.So they cannot be Magisterial.The pope needs to correct the mistake.He has issued these documents based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, with a fake premise.Only in this way could a hermeneutic of rupture be created with Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).-Lionel Andrades http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/pope-francis-is-not-magisterial-on.html
Pope Francis' Motu Proprio is a very welcome and long overdue corrective to the schismatic tendencies and elitist movements that have taken their authority from Ratzinger/Benedict's idiosyncratic liturgical fantasy, Summorum Pontificium.
ReplyDeleteThe primacy and express will of Vatican II has been restored. 1570 will have to fit into and be governed by that historical time frame.
Most Bishops will read the new Directive. Identify it as an outburst of an old man at a family gathering, who is still seeking relevance.
ReplyDeleteThey will say, "Bless his heart".
And then promptly ignore it and proceed on as before.
I've read of numerous Dioceses that will shut down their Indult groups and half as many who are keeping them as is.
Delete-Andrew
"Most Bishops will read the new Directive' I wouldn't have a bet on that one. Pope Francis spent three years consulting with the world bishops who, overwhelmingly, advised him that the followers of the 1570 Pius V Mass, were in the high management department, faddist neurotics, clergy dependent adolescents and extremely divisive.
ReplyDeleteThey have to make a choice now as to whether they remain in the Catholic Church of Vatican II or do a time warp into Trent where they can attend liturgical operettas to their hearts content.
Max is an ass but he's right. August 15th will be our last TLM here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBergoglio acted Ultra Vires. He does not have the authority to abrogate a sacred rite and his action also calls into question the fullness of truth about the Communion of Saints.
ReplyDeleteCountless are the numbers of saints who have been spiritually nourished by The Real Mass but Bergoglio argues it is a defective and even disruptive rite that leads to disunity.
It is clear the 60s Synod was unlike any Ecumenical Council that preceded it and it is not binding despite what the revolutionaries claim.
For those who think this is about the worst that could happen - consider:
Bergoglio could issue another Motu Propiro declaring that he is restoring the ancient and original practice of having a Pope choose his successor and that there will no longe be the necessity of a conclave because men make errors whereas he was chosen by God to set right what has long been wrong in the Church.
He might even claim he is doing that to save money better used to supply his field hospital - think how much it costs to fly all of the cardinals to Rome and to wine and dine them...
Attended the FSSP Mass this morning.
ReplyDeleteLetter from the Bishop was read.
Nothing will change. Proceed as you have been.
Concluding with a great big "Thank you".
Deo gratias! Our bishop has written to all TLM celebrants advising that for the present everything remains the same.
ReplyDelete12:44am
ReplyDeleteMax:
Don't know where you got your information that the world's Bishops "overwhelmingly" advised the Pope to perform this action.
I suspect that you pulled it out of your ass. Like Bergoglio pulled this Moto, out of his.
It has been only 48 hours and even the French Bishops are diplomatically telling him to dry up.
So much unity, huh?
ReplyDeleteWe had to destroy the village (unity) to save the village (unity)?
"It has been only 48 hours and even the French Bishops are diplomatically telling him to dry up."
ReplyDeleteAnon. 12:44-----Is this true? I read of a dozen or so USA bishops basically saying this to the ol' man Bergoglio, but the French? Is so that's great news. Read on several sites that this is the worst thing Bergoglio could have done. He doesn't know the storm he's unleashed. It'll ruin him and his people.
Benedict XVI unintentionally provided the followers of the dead schismatic Lefebvre with the 'authority' to spread and promote the schism which, over the last 14-15 years, has come to claim the kind of elitist exceptionalism that is a companion of faddism and which typifies the narcissistic attitude of the adolescent.
ReplyDeletePope Francis is now inviting the teenagers to grow up. Some will, most will be stuck in reactive 1570 AD. That was politics not evangelism.
There will be no mass dissent from Pope Francis' Motu Proprio because he wrote it with the support of the world's bishops.
12:39 pm
ReplyDeleteYes. Catholic News Agency has a report that some French Bishops are saying that they hold the Latin Mass in "high esteem".
I agree that this was not a wise move on his part.
I think that most of the Bishops will pat him on the head and ignore him.
The suppression of Benedict's 2007 sop to the Lefebvrists pales into insignificance when one sees what he wanted all along, a hybrid Mass, half vernacular, half Latin! See Cardinal Ratzinger's 2003 letter to schismatic Dr Heinz-Lothar Barth of Bonn: https://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/a-frightening-l.html
ReplyDeleteSee how that one goes down chaps.
One of the faux heroes of the 'Back to Trent' fad is entrepreneur John Zuhlsdorf, lately expelled from the diocese of Madison for politicizing the Sacraments and doing an Altman.
ReplyDeleteZuhlsdorf doesn't really give a hoot in hell about the Latin Mass or anything for that matter, except for himself. He's a grifter, a scammer and has been from the very start.
His response to the Pope's suppression of Benedict's autocratic move in 2007 is to set up a phony, 'novena' which is a pious front for the real business and that is to sell T-shirts, mugs etc to fund his gourmet tastes and crass consumerism.
https://wdtprs.com/2021/07/action-item-be-a-custos-traditionis-join-an-association-of-prayer-for-the-reversal-of-traditionis-custodes/
Pope Francis writes, in the letter, says Una Voce International’s representative Dr.Joseph Shaw,that the use of the 1962 Missal is
ReplyDeleteoften characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/who-is-pope-francis-punishing
This is true. I agree with Pope Francis.However he is not aware that Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with a rational premise, inference and conclusion otherwise, with the common false premise, it has to be a betrayal of Tradition and the « true Church ». Since with the false premise, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q,27Q) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Jesuits in the 16th century are rejected.So a false Church is created.
(from the blog Eucharist and Mission -Lionel's blog)
God, the Pope, Vatican II and the People of God don't give a rat's ass about you rational premises, inference and conclusions, Lionel. None of them are bound by this insane obsessive - compulsive fixation of yours.
ReplyDeleteLOOKING AT TRADITIONIS CUSTODE POSITIVELY
ReplyDeleteA papal Document which interprets Vatican Council II with a rational premise, inference and conclusion would be Magisterial. It would be in harmony with the Magisterium of the Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers.Traditionis Custode with its unethical interpretation of the Council with a false premise, to create a rupture with ‘Tradition’ and ‘the true Church’ is unethical and dishonest.It cannot be Catholic. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and then reject the Magisterium of the centuries.
This document has what Pope Benedict calls the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition, the popes and saints and Magisterium of the past.
It is a political document approved by the Italian President Sergio Mattarella, the Comunists and Masons.
Satan would not like Catholics to pray. He would not want priests to offer Holy Mass.
Nicole Winfield, correspondent of the Associated Press and Heidi Schlumf, editor of the National Catholic Reporter(NCR) still interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise instead of the rational premise, which does not produce a rupture with Catholic Tradition, the ‘true Church’.
Even Michael Sean Winters when commenting on Traditionis Custode in the NCR, knows that the Council can be interpreted rationally but does not do so. He knows that if LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are seen as only hypothetical and theoretical cases in 2021, then there is no conflicT with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.Now he and his family still go for the Novus Ordo Mass and interpret Vatican Council II irrationally to create a heretical version of the Creeds and Catechisms in a paralled Church which is not Catholic, not the ‘true Church’.
Traditionalists could object to Micheal Winter’s going for Mass while he rejects the Athanasius Creed and reinterprets other Creeds, with the false premise, needed to put aside Tradition.His rejection of the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past Catechisms is a rupture with the popes and saints of the past, who did not use a falsehood to deny the Deposit of the Faith, for political-left reasons.
POSITIVE
What is positive about TC is that it indicates that we still have the Mass in the vernacular which we can offer with the exclusivist ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century and no one will object and take away this Mass .There would be the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc) when Vatican Council II is accepted and interpreted with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.
(from the blog Eucharist and Mission -Lionel's blog)
God still doesn't give a flying fig for any of this delusional non-sense, Lionel. It's just bad theology, not revelation, old chap.
ReplyDelete@Tancred
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of split do you think you will see with those that attend the Latin Mass, that will find themselves out in the cold. By that, do you think you will see defections to The Orthodox Church, SSPX, and the various Sedevacantists?
Yes.
Delete-Andrew
ReplyDeletePope Francis could want the Orthodox Christians, Evangelicals and Lutherans to be considered ‘particular churches’ in the Catholic Church.So the traditionalists ,who do not accept the conclusion of Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise, are an obstacle.
Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.- Letter accompanying Traditionis Custode
At least some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were physically visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and so they wrongly thought, or wanted to think, that there was known salvation outside the Church in 1965.So the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS had become obsolete for them.But now we know that BOD and I.I are always invisible.Always.But in 1965 the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was not lifted.The popes were still saying that BOD and I.I were not invisible cases.
There was a new theology in the Church .It would claim that every one did not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation.Since BOD and I.I were explicit and objective cases for them.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney states that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Cardinal Cushing the Archbishop of Boston approved the Letter. He was then active at Vatican Council II.He too was saying that BOD and I.I were not invisible cases. If they were invisible cases then he and the Jesuits could not say that there were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Cushing removed Fr. Leonard Feeney's priestly faculties and the Jesuits expelled him from the community. Boston College expelled him along with other Catholic professors.So this was something important at that time.
Cardinal Cushing gave us much of Nostra Aetate and in principle assumed hypothetical cases were objective exceptions to EENS. This was a new salvation doctrine in the Church.We still have EENS with exceptions.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteSo Lumen Gentium 14 says not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church.Those who know and do not enter will go to Hell.Those who are in invincible ignorance and do not ‘know’ could be saved.Being saved in invincible ignorance was an explicit case for them.So the Council indicated that the Orthodox Christians, saved in their religion, and with no need to convert, are ‘particular churches’, in the Catholic Church.This error comes from the now common false premise and New Theology of LOHO and Vatican Council II.It is accepted by the popes.
They make the same mistake with Lumen Gentium 8,’subsists in’,It is as if there are physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church allegedly who are known.This is fantasy.We do not know who is saved where the true Church subsists outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.This is fantasy theology.
Similarly we cannot know of someone saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism, but instead with ‘elements of sanctification and truth’ in other religions (LG 8) or goodwill (GS 22).This could only be known to God if it happened.
But Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) accept this false reasoning and so Traditionis Custode mentions particular churches.
Pope Francis could want the Orthodox Christians, Evangelicals and Lutherans to be considered ‘particular churches’ in the Catholic Church.So the traditionalists ,who do not accept the conclusion of Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise, are an obstacle.
Vatican Council II has an objective error from the LOHO so in this sense it cannot be Magisterial.However if the Council is interpreted without the error, without the false premise, the Council is in harmony with the past Magisterium on their being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.The Council would be in harmony with the Tradition of the traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades
(From the blog eucharistandmission )
ReplyDeleteThe Una Voce International statement on Traditionis Custode continues to reject Tradition and promotes the Latin Mass with the new ecclesiology like the liberal bishops in England. So they are probably wondering why is the Latin Mass banned.
Una Voce and the Latin Mass Societies faithfully reject Tradidition when they interpret Vatican Council II, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed and other Creeds, with a false premise, inference and conclusion. In this way a politically correct rupture is created with Catholic Tradition.There is a break with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass.They are part of the parallel Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF OF UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF OF UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed (outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.
RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteTWO COLUMN APPROACH
Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column?
LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit or explicit for us.
hypothetical or known in reality.
invisible or visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).
subjective or objective.
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2021 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead-saved are visible.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition, on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.I am an exception. I use the left hand side column.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There are no personally known exceptions to EENS in 2021.If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.So when we meet a non Catholic we know that he is oriented to Hell.Since the norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water.We cannot judge any one as being as exception to the norm.There is no extra ordinary way of salvation known to us humans, in real life.
So we can see that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are not magisterial on Vatican Council II. For them to be Magisterial they would have to avoid the false premise and use the rational premise, inference and conclusion, like the popes did over the centuries. -Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-jesuits-in-rome-are-using-fake.html
ReplyDeleteUNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISEMENT BEFORE TRADITIONIS CUSTODE
The Una Voce International advertisement in an Italian daily did not say that Pope Francis and the bishops have nothing to fear from the Latin Mass which is offered with the same ecclesiology as the Novus Ordo Mass, when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the false premise, inference and conclusion instead of the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
Una Voce in future also will continue to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise and so reject the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was held by the missionaries during the 16th century, when they offered the Traditional Latin Mass.
Una Voce would assure the liberal bishops that the ancient Athansius Creed which said all need Catholic faith for salvation has been shelved, Since Una Voce accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, like the popes, in which the BOD and I.I were interpreted with the false premise to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church.
Una Voce will continue to cooperate with the cardinals and bishops in interpreting the Nicene and Apostles Creed and all the Catechisms with the fake premise to maintain the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
So in the same spirit of Vatican Council II they will continue to interpret the Council with the common irrationality to reject de fide teachings of the Church and so change the lex orandi and lex credendi in all Rites.-Lionel Andrades
(from the blog Eucharist and Mission)
(
Stark barking, raving mad!
ReplyDeleteSounds like one of the Dimond brothers on Adderall.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's just eccentric Lionel endlessly repeating corrupted neo-Scholasticism on steroids.
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with God, Jesus Christ, Divine Revelation or the People of God.
It's about a kid's game of who's in and who's out. It's amusing for about five minutes and then the triviality of it all becomes evident, and boring.....
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar,Murray and Cushing in 1965 not only changed the Church's teaching on their being exclusive salvation in the Church by using a false premise, but they also mentioned 'particular churches', in other words the Orthodox Christians and Protestants are canonically within the Catholic Church.Now in the Letter which accompanying Traditionis Custode it is mentioned as if this is the 'true Church' and not a paralled Church with Tradition.
ReplyDeleteVatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.- Letter accompanying Traditionis Custode
If they did not interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being explicit and objective cases in the present times ( the red column) they could not also say that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.
It was only by accepting the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO), that Cushing could create Nostra Aetate. He maintained the excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney, who would not say that there were objective cases of the BOD and I.I in our reality. There were none. The BOD and I.I could only be speculative and hypothetical cases.
But Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung and the others knew that this would not work. This would not be enough. To get rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and consider the Orthodox Christians as being within the Catholic Church, they had to project what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit and subjective as being objective. In this way a New Theology was created it said outside the Catholic Church there now is salvation unlike in the past and there is the traditional theology to support it. This was a falsehood.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteSince the FSSP and SSPX and many Catholics have rejected Vatican Council II in which LG 8,LG 16 etc are interpreted with an irrational premise and so the traditionalists go back to the traditional sources of the Church, which support the traditional ecclesiology of the Church, the Left identifies the Latin Mass, with the past ecclesiology.But the past ecclesiology is there today with us at even the Novus Ordo Mass if the false premise is not used to interpret BOD and I.I and the Creeds, Catechisms etc.
I do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise so the ecclesiology of the Church before and after the Council is the same. There is no development of doctrine for me since I am not using the New Theology.There is no new revelation in Vatican Council II since the new revelation depended upon the fake premise which I avoid.
I go for Mass in Italian. In my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, before 2003 I would go for the Latin Mass it was offered by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i.The Church was opposite to where I was living.The Latin Mass was prohibited in the parish when the Fransciscan seminary was closed by Pope Francis and restrictions were placed on the religious community.
But for me nothing changed with the Latin Mass not being available in the parish and also the churches nearby.Since I am clear that I must not use a fake premise to change Catholic doctrine as did Rahner, Ratzinger and the rest of them at Vatican Council and earlier during the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston, USA.So there is no theology to support a New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation and New Ecclesiology unless one depends upon the deception at Vatican Council II..-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 16, 2011
PRIESTS WHO OFFER TRIDENTINE-RITE AND NOVUS ORDO MASS AGREE THAT WE DO NOT DEFACTO KNOW A SINGLE CASE OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE: WE HAVE UNITY ON OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/priests-who-offer-tridentine-rite-and.html
(From the blog eucharistandmission )
Where are the colored bits, Lionel?
ReplyDeletePOPE FRANCIS INTEPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FAKE PREMISE SO TRADITIONIS CUSTODE CANNOT BE MAGISTERIAL. HE NEEDS TO PUBLICLY CORRECT THE ERROR.
ReplyDeletePope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a fake premise so Traditionis Custode cannot be Magisterial. He needs to publicly correct the error.
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the red column. Traditionis Custode permits the Latin Mass for communities which interpret the Council with the fake premise.It has banned the Latin Mass because communities in general do not interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise and then accept the false conclusion, as he does according to the blog Eucharist and Mission, the blog of Lionel Andrades a lay man in Rome.
This an objective and factual error of his. It is not the action of the Holy Spirit. There is no denial from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) ecclesiastics. They agree with me.
The pope and the CDF contradict the past Magisterium. This is schism.Since they interpret Vatican Council II with the red column,the fake premise, their understanding of the Creeds and Catechisms would be a break with Tradition.It would be schismatic and heretical.
This is a public scandal, not only for the pope and the CDF but also the cardinals, bishops and priests who accept Traditionis Custode and its false reasoning.
Pope Francis and the CDF need to correct their error and announce that they interpet Vatican Council II with the left hand column ( without the false premise) and so the pope had made an error in Traditionis Custode, which cannot be Magisterial, in its present form.
With the red column the pope has rejected the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.It does not mention any exceptions and this was how the past Magisterium accepted, it over the centuries.So this is a mortal sin of faith.He is officialy putting aside a Creed. Those who cooperate with the pope on this error are cooperating with the sin.
In a statement on Traditionis Custode, the FSSP, Institude of Christ the King, Una Voce International etc, have all extended their cooperation and obedience, to the pope, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the error.
John Henry Weston at Life Site News and Michael Voris at Church Militant TV are not reporting on this issue and neither are they interpreting Vatican Council II with the blue column ( without the false premise).
I interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise ( blue column ) so Vatican Council II (AG 7) supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), for me.It is in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (without exceptions) and the Athanasius Creed (without known exceptions).
Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson,Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, Fr. Nevus Macello op, the apologist John Martignoni and diocesan priests in Rome also choose the blue column, like me.
If the FSSP priests in France accept and interpret Vatican Council II with the blue column the bishops and the CDF may still not allow them to offer the Latin Mass.They have to accept and interpret Vatican Council II and the Creeds and Catechisms, with the red column to be approved by Pope Francis.
Will not their Mass be a sacrilege unless they officially correct the scandal ? Will not those who attend their Mass and receive the Eucharist be cooperating in the sacrilege? Would it be the same for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict ?
Would their Mass be a sacrilege since they have changed the meaning of the Creeds and Catechisms, have interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally,rejected the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed, in public.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/pope-francis-interprets-vatican-council.html
July 29, 2021
ReplyDeletePope Francis is not magisterial on Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode: Mundalein seminary and Bishop Robert Barron must acknowledge the error
The Mundalein seminary, Chicago interprets Vatican Council with the false premise instead of the rational option and there is no comment from them or Bishop Robert Barron and the apologists at Word of Fire.
According to Vatican Council II, Rahm Emmanuel the former Mayor of Chicago and Biden’s Ambassador to Japan, is oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).He does not have it.Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846 under the sub title Outside the Church no salvation.
With hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II there are no objective exceptions to AG 7 in 1965-2021.We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church.There are no practical cases of being saved as referenced in LG 8,LG 14 etc.No one in Chicago knew of someone saved outside the Church without faith and baptism .
There are no known cases of people in Heaven with the baptism of desire(BOD) or invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2021.
Cardinal Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago appointed by Pope Francis, like the faculty at Mundalein seminary continues to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so remains politically correct with the Left.
But this is unethical and not Catholic.
I accept the BOD and I.I as always being hypothetical.The book, Bread of Life, indicates that they were also hypothetical for Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I do not have to reject BOD and I.I ( speculative always) to affirm ‘the strict interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).BOD and I.I can only be speculative and never objective for us human beings.So being theoretical it is compatible with EENS and the need for all to practically have faith and the baptism of water to avoid the fires of Hell.
So BOD and I.I never ever were an issue.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) made it an issue by confusing what is invisible(BOD, I.I) as being visible.
Fr. Leonard Feeney’s excommunication was lifted without him having to recant.The CDF knew that it had made a mistake.Since the Athanasius Creed states, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that all need Catholic faith for salvation.This was the Creed of the Catholic Church for centuries.
Cardinal Cupich and Mundalein seminary could acknowledge that Pope Francis is not Magisterial when he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode were issued with this error.So they cannot be Magisterial.The pope needs to correct the mistake.He has issued these documents based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, with a fake premise.Only in this way could a hermeneutic of rupture be created with Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/pope-francis-is-not-magisterial-on.html