Friday, June 19, 2020

When Viganò calls for the scuttling of Vatican II




  What are you going to do? Answer: Trot out the insufferable George Wiggle who is worried the next pope won't remember that momentous Council and may not know what the New Evangelization is unless he reads Wiggle's book





21 comments:

John F. Kennedy said...

Sorry, I could only get through 18 minutes of Weigel and had to turn it off. What a joke.

Dad29 said...

Several years ago, a Catholic school's Fall fund-raiser was dinner plus Wiggle speaking. The organizers were very good people and extremely generous to the school, but they were "political" conservatives, not Catholic conservatives.

Anyhow, Wiggle made it crystal clear that he despised Latin Mass Catholics--and Latin, too. He's a twit with a bow-tie; no surprise, eh?

Dan said...

As a Priest, I agree wholeheartedly with the good Archbishop. The last 50 years have been disastrous in liturgy, morality and theology. It's time to say the Emperior has no clothes

Tancred said...

For a second there I thought you were Aged P from Wisconsin!

Weigel along with guys like Michael Novak, Bill Donahue et al are among those courtiers of the smart set who’ve been actively running deception for decades.

Michael Dowd said...

What The Weigel is for I'm against. Vatican II was a catastrophe and must be abrogated in its entirety. Vigano should be the next Pope.

susan said...

Weigel...puerile wanker.

;)

Catholic Mission said...

FEBRUARY 24, 2020
Will George Weigel resign now ?

George Weigel a Catholic American author, political analyst, and social activist serves as a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and he has been informed that he uses the irrational premise, inference and conclusion to liberally interpret Vatican Council II. I mentioned this in a previous blog post.1
He has a rational choice which he overlooks.I have mentioned this to him and other scholars of the Center through e-mails over the last few months.They, it seems, would prefer to continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference to create a non traditional conclusion, which would be in keeping with the public policy of the Left which they suppport.
All his books were written with the false interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Now that he knows the truth will he resign ? Since if he interprets Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion the Council will support Tradition and the past eccliocentric ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the Social Reign of Christ the King in law and politics.Someone who hold this reality as a Catholic on public policy may not be employed by the Washington Center where he works.-Lionel Andrades

1

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/george-weigel-catholic-american-author.html

Catholic Mission said...

DECEMBER 20, 2019
The Center for Ethics and Public Policy and George Weigel are deceptive

The President and scholars of the Center for Ethics and Public Policy, Washington, USA, have been irrational, on Vatican Council II. So unethically they create a theological rupture with 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and exclusive salvation.It was the theological basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in politics and law, the non separation of Church and State and a Catholic State,with religious freedom for non Catholics, as during the time of the Papal States...
So George Weigel uses a false premise and inference to re-intepret Vatican Council II, un-like me, to create a break with Tradition.Then with the false conclusion he supports a secular state,with pro-Satanic values.He then considers this irrationality and innovation, as the basis for the Center's understanding of ethics for a new public policy.
This is deception.It is unethical. It is not Catholic.It is un-real.
Academically this is false.Factually and objectively it is false.This is poor scholarship.
It is stretching things when the Catholic writer at the Center for Ethics and Public Policy,violates the Principle of Non Contradition to interpret Vatican Council II like Fr.John Courtney Murray Sj,and liberal theologians like Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
When George Weigel confuses what is subjective as being objective, implicit as explicit,invisible as visible, it is nurturing a lie.This is not ' a development of doctrine'.
The Washington think-thank had it wrong on Vatican Council II.Their conclusion and inferences are wrong. A false interpretation of the Council cannot be the basis for a politico-social understanding in society...
Vatican Council ( Feeneyite) suppports St.Aquinas, St. Augustine and the Church Fathers on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Feeneyite and not Cushingite) and the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I), interpreted with Feeneyism(and not Cushingism).
BOD,BOB and I.I never ever were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Yet this is the false premise of the Center.
Vatican Council II and EENS, interpreted with Feeneyism( invisible people saved with BOD, BOB and I.I are always physically invisible) provide the traditional theological basis for the proclamation of a Catholic State, with Jesus Christ at the center of all political legislation.The Constitution would place God at the center, of all life and activity, and not man. God would be the perspective , as a priority, for the development of society.
There cannot be an interpretation of the Church, life and society, by changing, the interpretation of Vatican Council II with a false premise , and then projecting the Council as a new revelation in the Church, a new revolution, a new understanding of what it means to be Church.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, the Council supports in DIgnitatis Humanae, a Catholic State with religious freedom for non Catholics, as during the time of the Papal States in Rome.
.-Lionel Andrades

JTLiuzza said...

What do we expect from Weigel? His whole career is based on the conciliar paradigm: "real" council versus "spirit" of the council, hermeneutic of continuity, "liberal vs conservative" post conciliar prelates, JPII was the bestest pope evah... and all the other delusions.

To scrap the council (please may it be God's will in my lifetime) is to destroy his entire edifice, to declare "you've been wrong about everything." Which to someone as pompous and preening as the pseudo-intellectual Weigel, is unthinkable.

And "scuttling" the council, or as his Excellency stated, "let the whole thing drop and be forgotten," is not enough. It's errors need to be explicitly defined and condemned via anathema, most especially that insufferable liturgy.

SFA said...

Catholics should be weary and suspicious of neo-conservative groups like the EPPC. Don’t always take things at face value. The EPPC is not beyond criticism, despite having Catholic overtures.

Catholic Mission said...


Even if the Amazon Synod is proof that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated from within Dr. Taylor Marshall can still interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism and the result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
So Taylor Marshall can announce that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This would be a rejection of the new ecclesiology of the Working Paper of the Amazon Synod.
Even if the Church was infiltrated before and during Vatican Council II, the Council and other magisterial documents can be interpreted without the false premise.
So the conclusion is different.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite, it is traditional. It supports the old ecclesiology.
This important point was not mentioned by Taylor Marshall even though he was informed about it on his blog.
Why did he not mention it?
If he interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism he would be saying there are only Catholics in Heaven.He would be saying that all non Catholics in the present times need to enter the Church with faith and baptism to avoid Hell.
Is he willing to say all this?
It is easier to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism as he did when he was the Fischer More College, USA.
-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...


Taylor Marshall interprets St.Thomas Aquinas with Cushingism and not Feeneyism and so there is a rupture with Tradition for him.Also there would be confusion over Vatican Council II.His participation in the Roundtable Discussion on the Eve of the Pan Amazon Synod contributed to the confusion which already exists among the participants.
Let me clarify.
Cushingism in philosophy refers to assuming hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical. For example the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case.It could be mistaken as an objective and personally known person saved outside the Church.
Feeneyism in philosophy refers to seeing hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.So being saved in invincible ignorance would refer to personally unknown cases in 2019. Since only God could know who is in Heaven on a general and personal scale.
Cushingism as a theology refers to assuming hypothetical cases( baptism of desire etc) are explicit and objective examples of salvation outside the Church. So the New Theology says outside the Church there is known salvation.
Feeneyism as a theology refers to hypothetical cases just being hypothetical( baptism of desire etc) and so they are not explicit and practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the old past ecclesiology, ecumenism of return. Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.

So when St. Thomas Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance or someone saved with desire for the baptism of water,Taylor Marshall interprets it with Cushingism. Otherwise he would have to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
So BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of EENS for him.
Aquinas would be contradicting Fr. Leonard Feeney, for him.Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to explicit cases for Taylor Marshall. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.And he is not a Feeneyite on EENS.
Aquinas would also be contradicting himself when he supports the dogma EENS and yet also mentions invincible ignorance etc.This is how Marshall wrongly interprets Aquinas.

Similarly when Taylor Marshall interprets Vatican Council it is with Cushingite philosophy and theology.This is a heretical and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which he accepts.If he chose Feeneyite philosophy and theology there would be no rupture with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. But then he would be a Feeneyite on EENS.
I have written to him in the past but he does not respond.
He does not want to affirm Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism. He also allows Pope Francis to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.The pope believes that if Vatican Council II has changed theology and ecclesiology( with Cushingism), he can change all the teachings of the Church.-Lionel Andrades

https://taylormarshall.com/

Catholic Mission said...


Even if the Catholic Church is infiltrated Dr.Taylor Marshall can still interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise. He could interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.The Church would then doctrinally go back to Tradition.
So who or what is stopping him ?.
Even though Dr.Marshall thinks in the video above, that Bugnini, is who is he is, so what ? Marshall can still affirm the old ecclesiology and old theology at Mass without rejecting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). What stops him?
So what if Ratzinger and the liberals were there at Vatican Council II. The Council can be interpreted by Dr.Taylor Marshall with Feeneyism and there will be the 'hermeneutic of continuity' with EENS ( Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed, the Creeds ( Feeneyite) and the Catechisms(Feeneyite and not Cushingite). -Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...


St.Paul Center, Oblate School of Theology, Daughter of Professor Dismissed by Boston College confuse what is invisible as being visible then make false conclusions- so does George Weigel and Taylor Marshall.

Why make subsistit in(Lumen Gentium 8) an issue when we cannot know any one saved outside the Church as such? What has it to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ? How can it be an exception or even relevant to EENS?
Why make 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) in other religions relevant to EENS? We cannot know of any one saved outside the Church as such. So it does not contradict exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
LG 8 always refers to hypothetical cases. It cannot be anything else.
For the Oblate Dean of Theology at Oblate School of Theology, Texas, USA,LG 8( subsist in )was a reference to a visible and known non Catholic saved outside the Church.it wa an objective exception to EENS. So he mentioned it as an exception.Then he also made broad conclusions.

Also for Matthew Ramage , writing for Scott Hahn's Sr. Paul Center, these were visible exceptions to EENS. They were not hypothetical cases only, as they are for me.

Similarly Patricia Chadwick used the false premise. She assumed what was invisible was visible. So Vatican Council II contradicted her father's 'rigid theological position' on EENS. -Lionel Andrades

JUNE 19, 2020
Academic Dean of Oblate School of Theology,uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II to create a non traditional conclusion and the hermeneutic of rupture
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/academic-dean-of-oblate-school-of.html

JUNE 20, 2020
St.Paul Center interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and so rejects the interpretation of outside the Church no salvation according to the Church Fathers.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/stpaul-center-interprets-vatican.html

JUNE 20, 2020
Patricia Chadwick's book Little Sister calls the St.Benedict Center, New Hamphire schismatics
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/patricia-chadwicks-book-little-sister.html

JUNE 21, 2020
Scott Hahn, George Weigel,Jimmy Akins have to say that the popes were wrong since Pius XII ? https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/scott-hahn-george-weigeljimmy-akins.html

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

O, good grief. Catholic Mission is here. We can now expect 50 more posts banging on about his delusions concerning Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire.

He has been banned at many other blogs owing to his obsessions.

One hopes the pattern will be repeated here.

Tancred said...

Yeah, in small doses maybe, but he’s out of control in the off topic zone. You know, I hate to discourage someone who is so zealous.

James Joseph said...

Weigel is merely paid by Jews.

Tancred said...

I’ve always assumed he was one himself. Am I wrong?

Anonymous said...

No, they don’t even like looking like dumb goyim as an act.

Catholic Mission said...

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...
O, good grief. Catholic Mission is here. We can now expect 50 more posts banging on about his delusions concerning Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire.

Lionel: These days it is concerning the Lefebvrists who interpet Vatican Council II and EENS with a false premise and then call themselves traditionalists.That's delusional. Sounds familiar ?
____________________________

He has been banned at many other blogs owing to his obsessions.

Lionel: He has been banned since like the Lefebvrists he refuses to interpret VC 2 and all magisterial documents by mixing up what is invisible as visible and then creating new conclusions which are irrational, heretical and non traditional and being passed off as the new deposit of the faith.
So when Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Lefebvrist, will interpret Vatican Council II,like ABS, then he will be affirming Feeneyite EENS and will probably be banned in quite a few places, though he would be an authentic non Lefebvrist Catholic traditionalist.
_____________________

One hopes the pattern will be repeated here.
Lionel: Even if the patten is repeated the truth cannot be put down. I am affirming the traditional teaching of the Church without the 'flourish' of the liberals and Lefebvrists.
-Lionel

Catholic Mission said...

ABS
So when Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Lefebvrist, will interpret Vatican Council II,without the false premise, unlike ABS, then he will be affirming Feeneyite EENS and will probably be banned in quite a few places, though he would be an authentic non Lefebvrist Catholic traditionalist.
It would be the same for Arcbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.-Lionel

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...