ANTE DIOS NUNCA SERÁS HÉROE ANÓNIMO
Lesson #329Behind EVERY great problem is a mouthy _ _ _ .
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II one is rational and the other irrational, one is without a false premise and the other is with it, one is Magisterial and the other one, the common one, cannot be Magisterial since it is irrational and creates a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church.Abraham Foxman and the Jewish Left only object to Vatican Council II if it interpreted with the rational premise. They support Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise by liberal, conservative and traditionalist Catholics.Foxman may know that the Council interpreted with the rational premise would be saying in Ad Gentes 7 that all need faith and baptism for salvation. So salvation is ruled out for him in his present condition.It would also not be contradicted by hypothetical cases orf LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. Now with the false premise( invisible cases are visible on earth) LG 8, etc would contradict Feeneyite EENS etc.Most people will go to Hell since they die without faith and baptism. This includes members of the Jewish Left.With Jesus' death and resurrection New and Eternal Covernant was created which supersedes other covenants. The Catholic Church is a continuation of the Jewish religions. The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah promised by the Jewish prophets, even after he came in Jesus Christ.Foxman,opposes the Latin Mass since many traditionlists offer it by going back to Tradition while side stepping the irrrational interpretation of the Council, the only intepretation they seem to know.So they put Vatican Council II ( irrational) aside and go to 'the true church'.
POPE FRANCIS IS IN SCHISM- VATICAN COUNCIL II IS BEING INTERPRETED WITH A FAKE PREMISE TO CREATE A FAKE RUPTURE WITH TRADITION: TRADITIONIS CUSTODE ALSO IMPOSES THE ERROR : THE ERROR NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE.Pope Francis was in schism at the National Cathechectical Center, Italy(Jan 30,2021) when he said that Vatican Council II had to be accepted as he interpreted it i.e with a fake premise.He said that his interpretation of Vatican Council II( with the fake premise) which produces a rupture with the past Magisterium- was Magisterial.He reiterated that the interpretation of the Council with the false premise, which produces a rupture with the Athansius Creed( all need Catholic faith for salvation),changes the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed( we believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins which exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church hence there are exceptions for EENS), and a re-interpretation of the Catechisms – was the Magisterium.This is schism since with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II there is a break with ‘the true Church’ represented by the Creeds, Catechisms, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and other Magisterial documents intepreted rationally.To reject the Athanasius Creed and change the understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed, is first class heresy, in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II(Ad Tuendum Fidem). It is schism in the Church.This is a scandal.Pope Francis needs to go for Confession and recant.He could announce that he interprets Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and so there is no schism with the past Magisterium, the popes and saints on doctrine and dogma.In particular there is no break with the past ecclesiocenrtrism of the Catholic Church.In this way Pope Francis would return to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology without rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted with the rational premise.-Pope Francis says 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.htmlPope 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.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 ?CONTINUED
CONTINUEDFor 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 interprets 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.EIGHTY TWO YEARS BACKEighty two years back Pope Pius XII allowed doctrine and dogma to be changed in the Catholic Church in exchange for peace and security. He did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney and allowed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to say that unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known exceptions to the centuries old strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). EENS was based upon the Bible teachings in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.So the New Theology was outside the Church there is salvation.This meant the teachings on ecumenism, other religions, Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and exclusive salvation would have to change.The Zionists could be present in 1960-1965 at Vatican Council II.The Church had surrendered.Then non Catholics were allowed to be professors at the pontifical universities in Rome, beginning with the John Lateran University.In 1949, the time of surrender, the popes Benedict, John Paul II and Francis were young.They became cardinals in a Church, which was separated from the State because of a change in doctrine in 1949.Now if that doctrine is restored to its original, with a rational premise, we have an ecumenism of return, 16th century EENS, the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislatioin and the non separation of Church and State based on the there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So the priority would be that all be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.It means we do not not reject Vatican Council II but re interpret it in harmony with the pre-1949 Catholic Churh. We undo what was lost 82 years back.The Council is no more an ally of the liberals.With the error Pope Francis and the liberals and even traditionalists are maintaining division in the Church.JOHN HENRY WESTON AND SBC AND SSPXJohn Henry Weston had a good program recently on the subject outside the Church there is no salvation .He can now work for creating unity in the Catholic Church but also answer if Pope Francis is in public schism.The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with exceptions and the St. Benedict Centers(SBC) accept EENS with no exceptions.Both groups are Catholic.CONTINUED
CONTINUEDFor the SSPX, the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are exceptions for EENS and for the SBC they are not exceptions.If you discuss this issue with either of them they will go into their specific theology, defending the founders of their communities.How can we create unity betweem these two groups ? One of them has to be wrong on doctrine.Similarly Pope Francis or I am in error on this issue.The SSPX will cite the present two popes who project the BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS. The SBC will cite the past popes, many of them, who did not project BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS.Now after Vatican Council II(1965) and the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston (1949) we know that there are no physically visible cases of the BOD and I.I in our reality.We cannot see or meet any one saved outside the Church with BOD and I.I. So BOD and I.I could not have been practical exceptions to EENS in 1949 or 1965.Someone made a mistake.It was only be confusing what was speculative (BOD and I.I) as being non speculative and objective, that practical exceptions ( visible cases of being saved with BOD and I.I) were created for EENS.In this way the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church was made obsolete.Ths is the point that John Henry Weston, Editor in Chief at Life Site News, must bring out in questions and discussions with the SSPX and SBC.It will have a direct bearing on how he personally will interprets Vatican Council II.Will LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II be exceptions for EENS or will they not be exceptions, for him ?Is Pope Francis rational or irrational on Vatican Council II ? Is there schism or no schism ? What does he think? -Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment