Monday, November 21, 2016

Can the SSPX accept Vatican Council II like the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate to get canonical status ? : No one tells the pope that he is interpreting Vatican Council II with bad philosophy and bad theology which has now been exposed

Image result for Misericordia et Misera Photo
It seems that in the Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera Pope Francis still wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with an irrational premise to get a non traditional conclusion and only then they will be granted full communion. And no points out the error. No one shows him his philosophical and theological irrationality.
No one tells him that he is interpreting Vatican Council II with bad philosophy and bad theology which has now been exposed.
It is with this irrational interpretation of the Council that there is a break with Tradition and he wants the SSPX to accept the same.
May be for political reasons the cardinals and bishops at the Ecclesia Dei,Vatican keep quiet but where is the rest of the Catholic Church?
Without this irrational interpretation of the Council there is no break with Tradition.Would the pope accept this ?
Without this irrational interpretation of the Council there is no break with Tradition and can the SSPX be allowed to affirm it? Can all Catholics be allowed to affirm  it?
Would the Jewish Left rabbis object if the FSSP priests,for example, say that they accept Vatican Council II without the false premise( the baptism of desire cases are physically visible) and inference( they are visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation) ?
Would the pope object if the Sisters of the Franciscans of the Immaculate say that they reject the Rahnerian theology in Vatican Council II ?
They have already said that they accept Vatican Council II but without the Rahnerian theology.So Vatican Council II would not conflict with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)? Can the SSPX say the same?
Can the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Centers,USA say that they affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr. Leonard Feeney which they have always defended?
For the two popes can Vatican Council II be in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and the EENS according to the 16th century missionaries?
No one is officially asking the two popes this.
-Lionel Andrades


Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Cafarra, Joachim Meisner and Walter Brandmüller were silent yesterday on the feast of Christ the King

Image result for photos of militia christi Cristo re
Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Cafarra, Joachim Meisner and Walter Brandmüller were silent yesterday on the feast of Christ the King.Due to a doctrinal change in traditional salvation theology there is no more an ecumenism of return, there is no more the necessity for non Christians to be incorporated into the Church for salvation and no Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.
Image result for Photo of the four cardinals and the dubia
They objected to subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia and moral theology  but ignore their own subjectivism in the interpretation of salvation theology.
When Pope Francis reportedly responded to their dubia and cited Vatican Council II he was interpreting Vatican Council II with the same subjectivism.
The four cardinals assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.Pope Francis does the same when he interprets Vatican Council II.
The four cardinals have in principle accepted that hypothetical cases can be non hypothetical but explicit and this is how they see Vatican Council II. This is non traditional and irrational. If they can accept this then why cannot Pope Francis break with tradition in his interpretation of Vatican Council II, moral theology and salvation theology?
Before the first Synod Cardinal Kasper said clearly that if ecclesiology can be changed in the Church then why cannot the Eucharist be given to the divorced and remarried.He is correct in the sense that ecclesiology has been changed with Vatican Council II.It was done in a stupid, crude way and they got away with it. They just assumed what was invisible was objective and no one in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith corrected the error. Even the traditionalists repeated the same nonsense. Traditional theology was replaced with fantasy theology.
Ecclesiology was changed when hypothetical and invisible cases were considered visible and  personally known.The baptism of desire and being saved  in invincible ignorance were postulated to be known in personal cases, visible and all without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So they then inferred that these cases were known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II being visible and known was a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition. So there was now known salvation outside the Church. This was a new doctrine. The old ecclesiology based on Feeneyite EENS was buried.
So Pope Francis is referring to this new ecclesiology in Vatican Council II which comes from mixing up subjectivity with objectivity, invisiblity with being visible.And no one complains. No one says that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with invisible cases just being invisible and so then there is no clash with the old ecclesiology.
And if there is no clash with the old ecclesiology then on the feast of Christ the King we can once again affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation. This is a priority since outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation, there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and so all need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.This must be expressed in political and social legisalation for the common good.
But the four cardinals did not say this.
They have restricted themselves to only moral theology.
Pope Francis responded with the traditional error and deception on Vatican Council II and no one pointed out the objective error in Vatican Council II.
Cardinal Raymond Burke has said that Amoris Laetitia cannot be magisterial since there is confusion and  ambiguity. What about Vatican Council  II? Why does  the Council mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the need for 'faith and baptism' for all for salvation.(AG 7, LG 14).The baptism of desire etc are invisible cases and have no relevance to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.They do not exist in our reality. They are 'zero cases' in the words of the apologist John Martignoni. They are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla says Fr. S.Visintin osb, Dean of Theology, Pontifical University of San Anselm, Rome.
But 'zero cases' are not 'zero cases' for the four cardinals.This is the new theology which has been accepted in principle. It is based on the irrational premise ( visible cases of the baptism of desire) and inference( visible baptism of desire is an explicit exception to Feeneyite EENS).Why do the four cardinal follow this new theology, the Rahnerian theology?
If they avoid this new theology and correct the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is there in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 then Pope Francis cannot cite Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and Cardinal Walter Kasper cannot cite Vatican Council II as the cause of a change in ecclesiology.
There is no change in ecclesiology without the irrational inference from the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston.It was in 1949 Boston that the Church took a new theological route. It was irrational,non traditional and heretical.
It still is magisterial and accepted by all  the cardinals.
-Lionel Andrades

On the feast of Christ the King homilies were controlled and restricted by the Vatican with the approval of the political Left

Image result for photos of militia christi Cristo re
On the feast of Christ the King yesterday,Sunday, homilies were controlled and restricted by the Vatican with the approval of the political Left. I did not hear any priest call for all political and social legislation to have Christ the King as its centre. Instead the priests spoke vaguely about making Christ the king of our hearts and to know that his kingdom is within us.
Even the daily Avvenire, of the Catholics bishops conference mentioned the feast but projected social values, solidarity etc. They mentioned Quas Primas and other encylicals of the popes in a article tucked away in the inside pages of the daily newspaper.
Image result for photo of keep silent
Ecclesiastical masonry does not encourage Catholics voting for Catholic political parties which support the Soical Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation. The cardinals and bishops too vote for the leftist  or right wing political parties whose priorities are not the teachings of the Catholic Church on the Social Reign of Christ the King.
To protect their wordly interests under hostile leftist laws, the Catholic faith is not proclaimed and a new Gospel continues to be preached in the Catholic Church world wide.
Image result for photo of keep silent
Vatican Council II is not being interpreted in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is the basis of the traditional teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King and the importance of there not being a separation of Church and State.
Even the traditionalists who affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King based on Quas Primas negate it with Rahnerian theology. This theology is based on invisible cases being invisible and so the conclusion is non traditional and irrational. This was the ruse used by ecclesiastical masonry to eliminate the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old eccclesiology of the Church.
Image result for photo of Catholic priest delivering a sermon in churchImage result for photo of Catholic priest delivering a sermon in churchRelated image
So today the Traditional Latin Mass is offered with Rahnerian theology.It is the same with the Novus Ordo Mass. The priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass will not affirm the old ecclesiology and reject Rahnerian theology.Since it would mean a loss of his career. The priest would be suspended by the Vatican with the approval of the Jewish Left rabbis.So presently homilies are mild and politically correct all over the world.
-Lionel Andrades

So what if the SSPX may be recognized today by Pope Francis? Like the Vatican Curia and the St. Benedict Centers they will be interpreting Vatican Council II with Rahenerian theology. So the Council will emerge as a break with Tradition.

So what if the SSPX may be recognized today by Pope Francis? Like the Vatican Curia and the St. Benedict Centers they will be interpreting Vatican Council II with Rahenerian theology. So the Council will emerge as a break with Tradition.
There is an option and I use it. Vatican Council II is then not a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
Rahnerian theology is based on an irrationality. It is bad philosophy. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made the original mistake.It was incorporated into Vatican Council II and was accepted by Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Karl Rahner, Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and the religious at the St. Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA.
So when they offer or attend the Traditional Latin Mass it is with the new theology, based on hypothetical cases not being hypothetical but defacto known in the present times.What is invisible is considered visible.This results in a break with the old ecclesiology on which depended an ecumenism of return, outside the Church there being no salvation for Jews, Muslims etc and the non separation of Church and State with Jesus and the Church being a priority over all politcal and social legislation.This is all eliminated.It is eliminated  with the premise of there being known salvation outside the Church.
If we avoid this premise then LG 16, LG 8, NA 2 would no more refer to visible cases. They would not be exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS.
However for the St. Benedict Centers and the SSPX, Lumen Gentium 16 etc are exceptions to the dogma EENS. So the traditionalists infer that LG 16 etc are physically known in the present times. This is irrational but this is their offical Rahnerian position.

So if the SSPX is recognised by the Vatican what difference would it make ? Both groups are still not interpreting Vatican Council II in harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.There still is a rupture with rationality.-Lionel Andrades