Friday, July 23, 2021

Why we love the Latin Mass

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

This was beautiful. Really shows true CAtholicism. So many Graces. Take it away, Francis, and the faithful will find it again and leave you in the dust.

The Latin MAss comes from God. It is our roots, our heritage, our FAITH.

It has brought so much holiness and so much good to the Church thru the ages, that for Francis to try to destroy it.....I would not be surprised if God punishes him very quickly. In one breathtaking day very soon, Francis will be dead, and his people will be running around panicking like chickens with their heads cut off. They won't know what to do. It'll be all over the news for days. Can you imagine the shocked faces of Frs. James Martin, Thomas Reese, Cardinals Gregory, Cupich, Dolan, Maradiaga, Parolin, and the "night-night baby" loser Cardinal (forgot his name).

Damian M. Malliapalli

Max Zerwick said...

The followers of Benedict's ill considered Summorum Pontificum were seduced by opportunists into the elitist and petulant mentality of entitlement effected by the old French royalist and schismatic Lefebvre (who died outside the Church, Feeney's territory). The main reason Pope Francis put restrictions on the celebration of the 1570 Mass was that it had become the favorite blunt instrument of the schismatics who reject the authority of Vatican II which was not only a teaching Council (two new Dogmatic Constitutions) also the one that completed, interpreted and contained all the previous Councils before it. All of the Popes since Vatican II.
Pope Francis has served notice on 'Catholic Amish' cherry pickers.

Bruce said...

Latin mass is gay. Small wonder Milo, Jeffrey Tucker, and Damian Thompson like it so much. Real men don't wear lace.

May Francis reign a hundred more years!

Anonymous said...

Better the Latin Mass be slandered as "gay", than the gaggle of "gay" Priests who preside of the Novus Ordo.

Max Nolan said...

Joseph Ratzinger, an expert theological advisor during Vat II, wrote in his diaries that it was about time that 'the walls of Latinity came down.' He also wrote that the 1570 had become little more than a elaborate operetta that people viewed from a distance without personal engagement. He observed too from his own experience that the only thing that the celebrant of the 1570 had in common with the congregation was that they were under the same roof.
He also pre-empted the constant assertion that the 1570 was responsible for forming thousands of saints. On the contrary, he held that many great saints like Catherine of Siena, Ignatius of Loyola and John of the Cross found the source of their sanctity not in the disengaged Tridentine form of the Mass but in other areas.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Max Nolan said...
Joseph Ratzinger, an expert theological advisor during Vat II, wrote in his diaries that it was about time that 'the walls of Latinity came down.' He also wrote that the 1570...

PETER KWASNIEWSKI SHOULD HAV APPEALED TO POPE FRANCIS TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY AND SO SUPPORT TRADITION AND PERMIT THE LATIN MASS FOR THOSE WHO DO THE SAME.

Peter Kwasniewski says Traditionis Custode is not juridical based upon his theological opionion which differs from others.He has not brought out the objective fault of the pope( and himself) when they both use a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II.This is unethical, dishonest and non Magisterial. Peter Kwasniewski should have appealed to Pope Francis to interpet Vatican Council II rationally and so support Tradition,and permit the Latin Mass for those who do the same.
There are no objective exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council Ii to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) which the pope and Kwansiewski do not affirm.For me the Council is not a rupture with EENS since I interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and tradtional conclusion.Kwasniewski does not mention this point since he needs to remain as political on Vatican Council II as, Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).Interpreting Vatican Council II with a fake premise is juridical and acceptable for Kwasniewlsi, the blog Rorate Caeili and Life Site News.
Kwasniewski’s interpretation of Vatican Council II as expressed in Traditionis Custode is as dishonest as the common one of the cardinals, bishops and priests.He ignores this point which is a major error in TC.He needs to be politically safe and continue to write books, give talks and earn a living.So he overlooks this particular, major error in TC,that of the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Church documents( Creeds and Catehisms).
The error of Traditionis Custode is specific and concrete.
When Pope Francis and Pope Benedict , the CDF and the traditionalists, interpret invisible and hypothetical cases of being saved, as referenced in LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church and alleged objective exceptions to Tradition in general and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church in particular,then this is a specific example of being dishonest. It is unethical academically and it is an error in public.It can also be noticed by the secular organisations and non Christians.For discerning Catholics it is a scandal and it is oficial.Kwasnewski considers it Magisterial.
Pope Francis is divisive when he wants to unite the whole Church with a dishonest and divisive interpretation of Vatican Council II.
CONTINUED

Anonymous said...

CONTINUED
The Mass, in all Rites, is only permitted for those who interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise, to create a fake rupture with Tradition.The artificial break with Tradition is the signal for the bishop to approve the liturgy.
The FSSP and diocesan priests in Dijon, France, following Traditionis Custode, will not be able to offer Mass in Latin or French,unless they interpet the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX,with the deceptive premise ( the red column) and so promote ‘ a theology of religions’, based on Vatican Council II ( irrational).
With ‘the theology of religions’, the FSSP priests and Latin laity will have to reject the First Commandment.They will have to say that people in other religions, who have different gods, will also be saved.
Peter Kwasniewski should have appealed to Pope Francis to interpet Vatican Council II rationally and so support Tradition,and permit the Latin Mass for those who do the same.

Anonymous said...


THERE IS DOCTRINAL DISUNITY IN THE PARISH AT MASS IN ITALIAN.POPE FRANCIS BANNED THE LATIN MASS THERE BEFORE 2013

There is doctrinal disunity in the parish in which I live in Rome.The First Commandment says ‘I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other God but me’.We Catholics follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yahweh-fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the promise and prophecy of the Jewish prophets of the Old Testament.We believe in the Bible as the only inspired –text, with the fullness of the truth, expressed in the Trinity. We believe there is salvation in only Jesus and His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation(John 3:5,Mark 16:16,John 3:15-19 etc). We follow the new revelation expressed in the Bible and the eternal covenant Jesus made with his Death and Resurrection.The Sacrifice of Jesus is renewed at every Mass I attend in Italian at the parish in Casalotti, Boccea.
This is God whom I serve and worship in the Catholic Church.Jesus is God. We also refer to Jesus as the Son of God, God who chose to come and live among us creatures and expiate for our sins.So that after death we may be happy with Him forever in Heaven.Those who believe in Jesus and live his teachings in the Catholic Church will be saved from the fires of Hell.
This is not the God of the Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Evangelicals, Buddhists and Hindus-even though God in his essense and as Creator, is one. Our concepts and beliefs are different as we are limited by the ego, the mind and the restrictions of being human.
So after the Death and Resurrection of Christ there is true worship in only the Catholic Church.This is the traditional theology of the Catholic Church.
Yet the priests and parishioners in my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, believe that outside the Church there is salvation, even among foreign religions, with foreign gods,like the Amazonians.
This is really an impediment to offering Holy Mass in Italian and for the laity, receiving the Eucharst.It is another one of the many signs of disunity in the diocese.
CONTINUED

Anonymous said...

CONTINUED
Vatican Council II tells us that Catholics are the new people of God (NA 4) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church(CCC 845), the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CCC 845).
So we do not have doctrinal unity among those of us who attend Mass in Italian.There is no Latin Mass in the old church of the parish, after Pope Farncis closed down the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate seminary.
Now Cardinal Braz de Avez, Prefect of the congregation for the religious, Fr.Sabino Ardito, Commissar for the Francscans of the Immaculate, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, creating a break with the First Commandment, the Creeds and the old Catechisms.They are all following Pope Francis, like the priests and parishioners in the parish.
The old church in the parish is still empty and unused. A long time back Mass, in Latin and Italian, was offered there by the Franciscans of the Immaculate under Fr. Stefano Mannelli F.I.This was before Pope Francis split the community.The Latin Mass was banned at that time and Mass in Italian was offered in a new church in the parish.
The seminary windows are still shuttered.I notice it every day.
Between the Comitato dell Immaculata of Fr. Stefano Manelli and the bishop of the diocese, the old church remains silent.No Mass is offered there any more.
In the new church, alongside the old seminary building, the Joselitos Christo community priests do not have the freedom to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise( the blue column).This is really a rejection of Vatican Council II by them and Pope Francis.It is the same for the lay people .
Pope Francis has not created unity among the two communities of the Franciscans of the Immaculate who are no more in the parish.He wants both communities, and the parish of Santa Maria di Nazareth, to offer/attend Holy Mass with the false interpretation of Vatican Council II, to create a New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology,New Evangelisation etc which is dis-unity and schism with the past Magisterium of the Church, over the centuries.
Pope Francis seems like the pope of disunity, he creates disunity within the heart of the Church, as he tries to create unity with Christians of different denominations, based on a false interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the common fake premise,.
We cannot please God and the Left(mammon).
(From the blog eucharistandmission )

Tancred said...

Dogmas go before Liturgies.

Tancred said...

@Gaybrielle aka Max, Bruth and Anonymous. Everyone knows Ratzinger was a liberal and is a liberal.

And calling Lefebvre and those who follow them nasty names only reveals your malignant and diseased mind, no doubt deteriorating from late-stage AIDS and colon cancer. Heaven knows you’d never address the devious and vicious personalities ranged against tradition, back then.

Anonymous said...

Ratzinger was a rad liberal at VAtican II, but didn't he have some sort of conversion shortly after the Council. I did read that when appointed to MUnich by Paul VI, and then as Cardinal in Paul Vi's small last consistory1977 (in which he elevated the guy he hoped would succeed him (Benelli), he was much more conservative.
Some of the JPII rot was still in place when he became Pope in 2005, but he did so much to restore the papacy and Vatican aesthetically and liturgically (brought back traditional Papal vestments, copes, mitres, the white EAster papal mozzetta, the papal fannon at Pontifical Mass, ornate papal thrones, processing to Papal outdoor Mass in PIazza San Pietro thru the right side entrance in the arcade rather than just thru the front entrance as Paul VI and JPII did.It is said he wanted to restore the Papal tiara, using one of the several dozen in the papal sacristy, but was afriad to for fear of liberal reaction. And most importantly of all of course, issuing Summorum Pontificum. If he had stayed rad liberal like he was in 1962-65 he would not have done all this. I read that if he had not resigned, he would have restored the Sedia Gestatoria--mainly because he was having trouble with his right leg/knee/hip.
He was very much too meek and mild to confront the liberal gang of Cardinals who opposed him in conclave and opposed his his whole term. He was too afraid to celebrate the TLM himself.
(All these contributors who are making disparaging remarks towards the TLM and siding with heretic Bergoglio regarding the TLM, I suggest you be honest and start going to the Lutheran Church, or Presbyterian Church (even the Episcopal Church is more 'catholic like" than they are). So be honest and be happy as Protestants. In his heart, that's what Bergoglio is. Or maybe he's actually nothing.

Damian M. Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

Isn't there a legend about the anti-Christ. I think it came from St. Francis of Assisi who said on his deathbed that someone in the far future would be elected Pope non-canonically in conclave (meaning the conclave would be invalid.....and people did initiate a pressure campaign for Bergoglio-a gang of liberal cardinals which is 100% against canon law and protocol), and that he would outwards apprar as a legit Pope, but his actions and words would be totally opposite to Church teaching (which Bergoglio has done in word and deed), and that he would lead millions into error and attempt to destroy the Church by his agenda (which Bergoglio has done), but that his reign would be relatively short. St. Francis predicted that his Order, and many others, would fall victim to this false teaching and suffer massive loses in membership and closed monasteries and convents. But in the end, the Church would be restored by a new Pope who would begin a rebuilding by repudiation of the "anti-Christ(Bergoglio), and a restoration of the traditions and teachings of the Church.

I read this prediction of St. Francis somewhere, but forget where. But it fits our time, and definitly fits Pope Francis (Beroglio) who has even renousced the ancient title of "Vicar of Christ". Only an evil one would do something like that.

Damian M. Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who see's that God allowed Benedict to stay alive long enough to see, first hand, how duplicitous are the Liberals in the Church?
Similar to his duplicity in dealing with the SSPX in the 1970's and 80's.

Anonymous said...

With some of these bishops ready to quash the LAtin Mass on orders from the Fuhrer Francis, I woner more than usuall...is the CAtholic Church the one True Church, or is it just the "cult of the Pope".
Some of these Cardinals, Bishops, Bishop Conferences and priests and religious Orders follow lock step the commands of Bergoglio, no matter how detrimental to the Faith they are, specifically the suppression of the Tridentine Latin Mass. I swear, some of these Bishops have me believing that if Bergoglio were to come out with rulings that priests should masturbate 3x a day (some probably do anyway), that the Church will bless gay marriage, that we're going to throw out the whole Magisterium of the Church regardless and make everything up from scratch starting September 1st, that gays can be priests and have sex , that priests can say MAss in their underwear, that we won't use bread and wine anymore because it's old fashioned so we'll use pizza and beer, that pedophilia is just a hobby and not a sin or crime....some of these assholes who were first to suppress the Latin Mass would say "Yes Holy Father, whatever you say, Holy Father, We love you, Holy Father".

I went to the Episcopal Church this Sunday with a friend because his sister is in the choir. They sang a beautiful rendition of "Panis Angelicus" in Latin as their Communion hymn. I was stunned. There they are using LAtin in a beautiful way, and asshole Pope Francis is suppressing (or trying) to supress it in our Church. How ironic I thought. Then I thought of Pope Francis and his directive. What a total loser he is. Asshole is totally appropriate for him and his people.

Damian M. Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

With some of these bishops ready to quash the LAtin Mass on orders from the Fuhrer Francis, I woner more than usuall...is the CAtholic Church the one True Church, or is it just the "cult of the Pope".
Some of these Cardinals, Bishops, Bishop Conferences and priests and religious Orders follow lock step the commands of Bergoglio, no matter how detrimental to the Faith they are, specifically the suppression of the Tridentine Latin Mass. I swear, some of these Bishops have me believing that if Bergoglio were to come out with rulings that priests should masturbate 3x a day (some probably do anyway), that the Church will bless gay marriage, that we're going to throw out the whole Magisterium of the Church regardless and make everything up from scratch starting September 1st, that gays can be priests and have sex , that priests can say MAss in their underwear, that we won't use bread and wine anymore because it's old fashioned so we'll use pizza and beer, that pedophilia is just a hobby and not a sin or crime....some of these assholes who were first to suppress the Latin Mass would say "Yes Holy Father, whatever you say, Holy Father, We love you, Holy Father".

I went to the Episcopal Church this Sunday with a friend because his sister is in the choir. They sang a beautiful rendition of "Panis Angelicus" in Latin as their Communion hymn. I was stunned. There they are using LAtin in a beautiful way, and asshole Pope Francis is suppressing (or trying) to supress it in our Church. How ironic I thought. Then I thought of Pope Francis and his directive. What a total loser he is. Asshole is totally appropriate for him and his people.

Damian M. Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

With some of these bishops ready to quash the LAtin Mass on orders from the Fuhrer Francis, I woner more than usuall...is the CAtholic Church the one True Church, or is it just the "cult of the Pope".
Some of these Cardinals, Bishops, Bishop Conferences and priests and religious Orders follow lock step the commands of Bergoglio, no matter how detrimental to the Faith they are, specifically the suppression of the Tridentine Latin Mass. I swear, some of these Bishops have me believing that if Bergoglio were to come out with rulings that priests should masturbate 3x a day (some probably do anyway), that the Church will bless gay marriage, that we're going to throw out the whole Magisterium of the Church regardless and make everything up from scratch starting September 1st, that gays can be priests and have sex , that priests can say MAss in their underwear, that we won't use bread and wine anymore because it's old fashioned so we'll use pizza and beer, that pedophilia is just a hobby and not a sin or crime....some of these assholes who were first to suppress the Latin Mass would say "Yes Holy Father, whatever you say, Holy Father, We love you, Holy Father".

I went to the Episcopal Church this Sunday with a friend because his sister is in the choir. They sang a beautiful rendition of "Panis Angelicus" in Latin as their Communion hymn. I was stunned. There they are using LAtin in a beautiful way, and asshole Pope Francis is suppressing (or trying) to supress it in our Church. How ironic I thought. Then I thought of Pope Francis and his directive. What a total loser he is. Asshole is totally appropriate for him and his people.

Damian M. Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

July 27, 2021
THE TRADITIONALIST-LIBERAL DIVISION BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II IS AN ILLUSION
The traditionalist-liberal division based upon the Latin Mass is an illusion



Fr.Alfonso Maria Bruno was thanked this month by Brother Joseph( Pierre) one of the seminarians at Casalotti, Boccea Rome of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.He was ordained a priest at the Salesian basilica of the Sacred Heart, Rome.He was one of the four new priests who lived in the parish seminary, before the seminary was transferred last year to Tiburtina, Rome.

Since I lived in the parish often they could not avoid meeting me and talking to me.I would tell Fra.Joseph, who is from France that the entire text of Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, did not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.He was surprised initially since this was not his religious formation at the Boccea seminary or the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome.

I would tell him that his catechesis in the parish,Santa Maria di Nazareth, was inadequate.This was not the teaching of the Church over the centuries.He would not teach the lay parishioners that there was exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This was unthinkable for him.He would mention St. Peter of Alcantara and I would remind him that the saint taught traditional exclusive salvation, in Jesus as Jesus was known in the Catholic Church.

Of course Joseph knew that if he taught that there is exclusive salvation in Jesus and only the Catholic Church he could not continue to remain at the seminary or study at the university.The Left would object. He had to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, to create the New Theology.Then he could project false exceptions for EENS and an ecumenism of return. Now as a priest he will continue to teach the error which was obligatory, for all seminarians and priests here.

This could be a reason why Pope Francis closed the seminary in 2013.He told the seminarians who remained to study only at the pontifical universities.He may have been concerned. They could interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, like him and the SSPX, but reject the conclusion, like the SSPX and then return to traditional sources which supported ecclesiocentrism.So now we know that Pope Francis's liberalism comes with the false interpretation of Vatican Council II and not the rational interpretation of the Council-text. We have found his Achilles heel.

Father Joseph may not die as a martyr since he believed and taught that there was salvation outside the Catholic Church.His ecclesiology of course is different from that of the Early Christians(Catholics).

He will not get into trouble with the police since with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally he is following the Leftist ideology of the state in Italy.

He would be quick to denounce me since my rational interpretation of Vatican Council II is not politically correct with the Left and his religious superiors.

Also if he interpreted Vatican Council II rationally without the false premise, Fr. Alfonso Maria Bruno and Fr. Rosario Sammarco would not ordain him or allow him to continue as a priest.

It is important not to see this as a liberal traditionalist issue.No,no.Joseph could be conservative in many ways.

CONTINUED

Anonymous said...

CONTINUED


He is from an area in France where the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the same false premise as those who are labelled liberals.It is part of the formation of the SSPX and FSSP priests there.

Joseph is sincere in his faith. He would make a good pries in so many ways. He can now give people the Sacraments and save them from going to Hell and Satan.But like all priests today, traditionalists, liberals….he has had his formatioin with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. This is a political faith. It is not Catholic.

Just like Fr. Alphonso Maria Bruno f.i , Una Voce International officials, Roberto dei Mattei,Fr Stefano Maria Manelli f.i and Fr.Gabriel Maria Pellettieri f.i,,Cardinal Braz de Avez, Fr. Sabino Ardito sdb, the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, Dr.Joseph Shaw, theologians John Lamont, Thomas Pink and John Rao,traditionalist Chris Ferrara and the owner of the blog Rorate Caeili - all, like the seminarians at Casalotti, Boccea and Fra Joseph, are interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.

The traditionalist-liberal division based upon the Latin Mass is an illusion.

Joseph can offer Mass in Latin or French in France and there would be a rupture with EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc.

The FSSP priests can offer Mass in Latin or French in Dijon, France and there would still be the same rupture with Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q) etc).

It is the subtle false premise which creates the division in the Church and not the Latin Mass.The Left does not know this and so they have forced Pope Francis to place restrictions on the Latin Mass with Traditionis Custode.

Fr. Alfonso Maria Bruno did not know this when he ‘welcomed the apostolic visitation, accusing the sisters of becoming accustomed to using the Extraordinary Form exclusively and that their decision had then been “exploited” by traditionalist groups.’(Wikipedia).

The issue never really was the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.The immediate issue was Vatican Council II and EENS.The issue is how do you interpret Vatican Council II ? As a rupture or continuation withthe dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology?

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know this.He thought it was the Mass which created the break with Tradition and he wanted Rome to come back to the traditional faith.

He was correct.Rome had broken with the traditional faith.But this was done by interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally.Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger could have interpreted Vatican Council II rationally instead of excommunicating him.Pope Paul VI could have interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise and he would have gone back to Tradition.

Rome, can still come back to the Faith. All that the Vatican has to do is identify the false premise and announce that it should be avoided by all Catholics.They are obligated to interpret Vatican Council II honestly, with the rational premise.

Then even Father Joseph will have to come back to the Faith.-Lionel Andrades
(from the blog eucharistandmission )

Anonymous said...


Costa Rican Bishops banish TLM and now they have severe flooding.

German Bishops slap the Church´s perennial teaching on Marriage in the face and

the flooding was historic.

Anonymous said...

July 28, 2021
THE MEDIA WHEN REPORTING ON TRADITIONIS CUSTODE HAVE MADE AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II AND JOHN SALZA, CHRISTINE NILES, TERRANCE BERRSI, CHRIS FERRARA AND THE THOMAS MORE LAW SOCIETY DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE.

Terrance Berris a retired lawyer has a blog the Badger Catholic and he interprets Vatican Council II with the fake premise and with the same false premise he interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) similar to Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr. Davide Pagliariani and Fr. Franz Schmidberger of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).

He has probably read the recent media reports in the main line newspapers on Traditionis Custode critical of those who do not accept Vatican Council II.The reports refer to Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and not with the rational premise, which prevents a rupture with Tradition.

Terrance Berris is associated with the Thomas More Law center which also interprets the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X with the irrationality,the common error and so has not challenged the reports in the mainline media, which want the Catholic Church to maintain a false break with Catholic Tradition.

Why must Catholics todays officially not have the spirituality and theology of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Dominic Guzman, St. Teresa of Avila and the founders of the religious communties before the 1940’s ?

Why don’t Terrance Berris, Chris Ferrara and those in the legal community interpret Magisterial documents with the rational premise and then correct the error in reports of the Assciated Press, errors in Wikipedia and those of the SSPX ?

Christine Niles at Church Militant TV(CMTV) interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion. She has a legal background. I have e-mailed CMTV so many times but they do not discuss this issue.

Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar in the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets Vatican Council II with the fake premise and the rest of the Curia there, along with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).Fr. Georges de Laire has maintained prohibitions on the St.Benedict Center, NH, for not interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church( 847-848, Invincible ignorance) as being an objective exception to Feeneyite EENS.This is irrational. It is heretical and schismatic and yet it is the official policy of the CDF and the present two popes.Why must Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, NH, contradict St. Thomas Aquinas , St. Augustine,St. Maximillian Kolbe and numerous popes and saints on EENS, by using a fake premise?

This is now a secular and public issue. The media when reporting on Traditionis Custode , have made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II, and John Salza, Christine Niles, Terrance Berris, Chris Ferrara and the Thomas More Law Society do not comment on this issue.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-media-when-reporting-on-traditionis.html

Anonymous said...

Thank you for quoting Fr.Ratzinger on his disdain for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Vatican II "conservatives" like Michael Matt and his followers always talk up
'Pope' Benedict XVI as some type of
source of ultra-Orthdoxy.
He was a )ewish footstool from the beginnig.
-Abdrew

Anonymous said...

Just like Lourdes suffered from
apocalyptic flooding the 2 separate times JP2 was supposed to be
"venerated."

-Andrew

Anonymous said...


LEADERS OF PRAYER GROUPS IN THE PARISH INTERPRET THE CREEDS, CATECHISMS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY :IT WAS THE SAME WHEN THE LATIN MASS WAS OFFERED IN THE PARISH
In my parish,Santa Maria di Nazareth,Boccea, Rome, leaders of prayer groups deny the Catholic Faith when they interpret the Creeds, Catechisms and Vatican Council II irrationally and are still given the Eucharist.The use of the false premise is common and un-noticed.
Maria is an Italian teacher in a college and assists with the Padre Pio Prayer Group of the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome.She organised a pilgrimage a few years back to San Giovanni Rotondo and I accompanied them.
Massimo leads the rosary at the morning weekly Mass in Italian.Many years back I would attend the Latin Mass in this parish but now it is prohibited. Ennio has been a catechist and often leads the prayers and processions.Giorgio is an active and good catechist with whom young people seem comfortable.
In general the parishioners employ a false premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church. They do not use a rational premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II etc. This would produce a traditional conclusion and would have a continuity with the past.
So their interpretation of the Creeds with the false premise is first class heresy. It is schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries.
When the Creeds are rejected or their original meaning changed, it is a mortal sin of faith.There is the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation and correcting the error in public.The faith needs to be affirm on these points in public.
It is difficult for the lay parishioners to do this when the parish priests do not do the same.
FAKE PREMISE OF CATHOLIC PRAYER GROUPS
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 CATHOLIC PRAYER GROUPS
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION CATHOLIC PRAYER GROUPS
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.
Lionel Andrades
(from the blog eucharistandmission )

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.

A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode(Emphasis added)
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.
How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance),for example ?
For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious.
How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he is interpreting Vatican Council II and it is different from the rational way I interpret the Council.I consider the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise Magisterial, since it is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.-Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.
There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

___________________