Various congregations and societies have met in France to discuss the current situation with regards to the attempt to eliminate the traditional Latin Mass. If "Francisco" and his ilk are truly interested in "dialogue" and "encounter" and the "peripheries" then they will respond with charity and magnanimity.
But we know what they are and what they are not.
I will not submit to Bergoglio's machinations any more than I will submit to the Fascist Butthead, Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
The fight is on. It has never ceased. It will be to my dying breath.
Communiqué of the Superiors General of the Communities "Ecclesia Dei" - Pilgrimage of Chartres Pentecost - Our Lady of Christendom (nd-chretiente.com)
Computer translation:
"God's mercy on all flesh" (Si 18:13)
Above all, the signatory Institutes want to reiterate their love of the Church and their fidelity to the Holy Father. This filial love is tinged today with great suffering. We feel suspected, sidelined, banished. However, we do not recognize ourselves in the description given by the Cover Letter of the motu proprio Traditionis custodes of July 16, 2021.
"If we say we have no sin... (I Jn 1:8)
We do not consider ourselves the "true Church." On the contrary, we see in the Catholic Church our Mother in whom we find salvation and faith. We are loyally subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff and that of the diocesan bishops, as shown by the good relations in the dioceses (and the functions of Presbyteral Counsellor, Archivist, Chancellor or Official that have been entrusted to our members) and the result of the canonical or apostolic visits of recent years. We reaffirm our adherence to the Magisterium (including that of Vatican II and the following) according to the Catholic doctrine of the assent due to it (cf. in particular Lumen Gentium, No. 25, and Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 891 and 892) as evidenced by the numerous studies and doctoral theses made by many of us over the past 33 years.
Have mistakes been made? We are ready, as is every Christian, to ask for forgiveness if some excesses of language or mistrust of authority have been able to enter this or that of our members. We are ready to convert if party spirit or pride has polluted our hearts.
"Fulfill your vows to the Most High" (Ps 49:14)
We beg for a human, personal, trusting dialogue to be opened, far from ideologies or the coldness of administrative decrees. We would like to be able to meet a person who will be for us the face of the Motherhood of the Church. We would like to be able to tell him about the suffering, the tragedies, the sadness of so many lay faithful from all over the world, but also of priests, men and women religious who gave their lives on the word of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
They were promised that "all measures would be taken to guarantee the identity of their Institutes in the full communion of the Catholic Church."[1] The first Institutes accepted with gratitude the canonical recognition offered by the Holy See in full attachment
to the traditional pedagogies of the faith, particularly in the liturgical field (on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding of 5 May 1988 between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre). This solemn commitment was expressed in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988; then in a diversified way for each Institute, in their decrees of erection and in their constitutions approved definitively. The men and women religious and priests engaged in our Institutes have taken vows or issued commitments according to this specification.
It is in this way that, trusting in the word of the Supreme Pontiff, they gave their lives to Christ to serve the Church. These priests, men and women religious have served the Church with dedication and self-sacrifice. Can we deprive them today of what they have committed themselves to? Can we deprive them of what the Church had promised them through the mouths of the Popes?
"Be patient with me!" (Mt 18:29)
Pope Francis "invites pastors to listen with affection and serenity, with the sincere desire to enter into the heart of the drama of people and to understand their point of view, to help them live better and recognize their place in the Church" (Amoris Laetitia, No. 312). We are eager to entrust the tragedies we experience to a father's heart. We need listening and benevolence and not condemnation without prior dialogue.
Harsh judgment creates a sense of injustice and produces resentment. Patience softens hearts. We need time.
Today we hear about disciplinary apostolic visits for our Institutes. We ask for fraternal meetings where we can explain who we are and the reasons for our attachment to certain liturgical forms. Above all, we desire a truly human and merciful dialogue: "Be patient with me!"
"Circumdata varietate" (Ps 44:10)
On August 13, the Holy Father affirmed that in liturgical matters" "unity is not uniformity but the multifaceted harmony created by the Holy Spirit."[2] We are eager to make our modest contribution to this harmonious and diverse unity, aware that, as Sacrosanctum Concilium teaches, "the liturgy is the summit to which the Church's action tends and at the same time the source from which all her virtue flows" (SC, No. 10).
With confidence, we turn first of all to the Bishops of France so that a true dialogue may be opened and a mediator may be appointed who will be for us the human face of this dialogue. "We must avoid judgments that do not take into account the complexity of the various situations... It is a question of integrating everyone, we must help everyone to find his own way of being part of the ecclesial community, so that he may feel the object of undeserved, unconditional and gratuitous mercy" (Amoris Laetitia, no. 296-297).
Done at Courtalain, France, on 31 August 2021
Father Andrzej Komorowski, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Bishop Gilles Wach, Prior General of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
Father Luis Gabriel Barrero Zabaleta, Superior General of the Institute of the Good Shepherd
Father Louis-Marie de Blignières, Superior General of the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrier
Father Gerald Goesche, Prevot General of the Institut Saint-Philippe-Néri
Father Antonius Maria Mamsery, Superior General of the Missionaries of the Holy Cross
Dom Louis-Marie de Geyer d'Orth, abbot of the abbey of Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux
Father Emmanuel-Marie Le Fébure du Bus, abbot of the Canons of Lagrasse
Dom Marc Guillot, abbot of the Abbey of Sainte-Marie de la Garde
Mother Placide Devillers, abbess of the Abbey of Notre-Dame de l'Annonciation du Barroux
Mother Faustine Bouchard, Prioress of the Canonesses of Azille
Mother Madeleine-Marie, Superior of the Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus Sovereign Priest
-----
[1] Information Note of 16 June 1988, in Documentation Catholique, n° 1966, p. 739.
[2] Videomensaje del Santo Padre Francisco a los participantes en el congreso virtual continental de la vida religiosa, convocado por la CLAR, 13-15 August 2021.
"God's mercy on all flesh" (Si 18:13)
Above all, the signatory Institutes want to reiterate their love of the Church and their fidelity to the Holy Father. This filial love is tinged today with great suffering. We feel suspected, sidelined, banished. However, we do not recognize ourselves in the description given by the Cover Letter of the motu proprio Traditionis custodes of July 16, 2021.
"If we say we have no sin... (I Jn 1:8)
We do not consider ourselves the "true Church." On the contrary, we see in the Catholic Church our Mother in whom we find salvation and faith. We are loyally subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff and that of the diocesan bishops, as shown by the good relations in the dioceses (and the functions of Presbyteral Counsellor, Archivist, Chancellor or Official that have been entrusted to our members) and the result of the canonical or apostolic visits of recent years. We reaffirm our adherence to the Magisterium (including that of Vatican II and the following) according to the Catholic doctrine of the assent due to it (cf. in particular Lumen Gentium, No. 25, and Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 891 and 892) as evidenced by the numerous studies and doctoral theses made by many of us over the past 33 years.
Have mistakes been made? We are ready, as is every Christian, to ask for forgiveness if some excesses of language or mistrust of authority have been able to enter this or that of our members. We are ready to convert if party spirit or pride has polluted our hearts.
"Fulfill your vows to the Most High" (Ps 49:14)
We beg for a human, personal, trusting dialogue to be opened, far from ideologies or the coldness of administrative decrees. We would like to be able to meet a person who will be for us the face of the Motherhood of the Church. We would like to be able to tell him about the suffering, the tragedies, the sadness of so many lay faithful from all over the world, but also of priests, men and women religious who gave their lives on the word of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
They were promised that "all measures would be taken to guarantee the identity of their Institutes in the full communion of the Catholic Church."[1] The first Institutes accepted with gratitude the canonical recognition offered by the Holy See in full attachment
to the traditional pedagogies of the faith, particularly in the liturgical field (on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding of 5 May 1988 between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre). This solemn commitment was expressed in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988; then in a diversified way for each Institute, in their decrees of erection and in their constitutions approved definitively. The men and women religious and priests engaged in our Institutes have taken vows or issued commitments according to this specification.
It is in this way that, trusting in the word of the Supreme Pontiff, they gave their lives to Christ to serve the Church. These priests, men and women religious have served the Church with dedication and self-sacrifice. Can we deprive them today of what they have committed themselves to? Can we deprive them of what the Church had promised them through the mouths of the Popes?
"Be patient with me!" (Mt 18:29)
Pope Francis "invites pastors to listen with affection and serenity, with the sincere desire to enter into the heart of the drama of people and to understand their point of view, to help them live better and recognize their place in the Church" (Amoris Laetitia, No. 312). We are eager to entrust the tragedies we experience to a father's heart. We need listening and benevolence and not condemnation without prior dialogue.
Harsh judgment creates a sense of injustice and produces resentment. Patience softens hearts. We need time.
Today we hear about disciplinary apostolic visits for our Institutes. We ask for fraternal meetings where we can explain who we are and the reasons for our attachment to certain liturgical forms. Above all, we desire a truly human and merciful dialogue: "Be patient with me!"
"Circumdata varietate" (Ps 44:10)
On August 13, the Holy Father affirmed that in liturgical matters" "unity is not uniformity but the multifaceted harmony created by the Holy Spirit."[2] We are eager to make our modest contribution to this harmonious and diverse unity, aware that, as Sacrosanctum Concilium teaches, "the liturgy is the summit to which the Church's action tends and at the same time the source from which all her virtue flows" (SC, No. 10).
With confidence, we turn first of all to the Bishops of France so that a true dialogue may be opened and a mediator may be appointed who will be for us the human face of this dialogue. "We must avoid judgments that do not take into account the complexity of the various situations... It is a question of integrating everyone, we must help everyone to find his own way of being part of the ecclesial community, so that he may feel the object of undeserved, unconditional and gratuitous mercy" (Amoris Laetitia, no. 296-297).
Done at Courtalain, France, on 31 August 2021
Father Andrzej Komorowski, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Bishop Gilles Wach, Prior General of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
Father Luis Gabriel Barrero Zabaleta, Superior General of the Institute of the Good Shepherd
Father Louis-Marie de Blignières, Superior General of the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrier
Father Gerald Goesche, Prevot General of the Institut Saint-Philippe-Néri
Father Antonius Maria Mamsery, Superior General of the Missionaries of the Holy Cross
Dom Louis-Marie de Geyer d'Orth, abbot of the abbey of Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux
Father Emmanuel-Marie Le Fébure du Bus, abbot of the Canons of Lagrasse
Dom Marc Guillot, abbot of the Abbey of Sainte-Marie de la Garde
Mother Placide Devillers, abbess of the Abbey of Notre-Dame de l'Annonciation du Barroux
Mother Faustine Bouchard, Prioress of the Canonesses of Azille
Mother Madeleine-Marie, Superior of the Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus Sovereign Priest
-----
[1] Information Note of 16 June 1988, in Documentation Catholique, n° 1966, p. 739.
[2] Videomensaje del Santo Padre Francisco a los participantes en el congreso virtual continental de la vida religiosa, convocado por la CLAR, 13-15 August 2021.
25 comments:
Clearly submission to the holy father,to the supreme pontiff, to pope francis, to the bergoglian magisterium, to lumen gentium #25, to the vatican II.
Vatican II is a counterfeit church headed by an imposter. It is not the church of Christ. Fake and corrupted. The blind leading the blind. It includes delusional FSSP and SSPX priests, - many of them are honest (but delusional), and will wake up shortly. Vatican II religion serves the NWO agenda. There are no negotiations with Judases. All faithful will go underground soon to celebrate TLM. Some already started new covenants and monasteries. After a while, Holy Ghost will gather these souls and renew Catholic Church, the true church of Christ.
They sound like terrified beggars who expect to be squashed.
What a fawning, sickening statement they came up with. Absolutely useless. If that's all the response they have then they are done for, Bergoglio and his ilk will devour their institutes just like the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
As a convert from protestantism, this sedevecantism is ridiculous. The Catholic Church containing the Sacraments and the tradition which sedevecantists so adore (or think they do) is only found under the Pope and his Bishops. Rejecting a clear line of dogma and the authorities who make that dogma have a body in reality, and then saying "I have the Truth according to that same authoritative body up until some arbitrary point" is utter stupidity.
You are acting like Judas, so close to Jesus in practice, yet betraying Him in His bride the Church with a kiss. The fact that Peter was rebuked by Jesus "Get behind me Satan!" doesn't negate the fact that Jesus said "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." and also "Peter I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail."
Have confidence in Peter and the Pope who sits in His chair, having the keys of the Kingdom. St. Joseph Pray for us.
Salvation is from the Catholic Church alone. St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors of the Church make that clear. There is no doubt that the majority of the church is in some form of apostasy, of which you are included as a sedevantist. I speak bluntly to you because from your position you should understand objective truth, and your position is one of Justice, and the most basic form of Christian Justice is in the Our Father "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." It does not seem you are very forgiving. Jesus said of the Pharisees, whom represent the churches hypocritical religous authorities "The Scribes and the Pharisees sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not." Just because the majority of the Church doesn't follow its own teaching or traditions doesn't mean that the institution isn't infallible in what it promulgates, simply put the Church is a Hospital for sinners not a house of saints; this includes the Pope and Bishops who can commit sins even against the first commandment and therefor against the Church. However, it is the only place where one can become a saint, though Jesus Christ, the Divine physician and so aid Him in His work in the Salvation of Souls.
WHEN POPE BENEDICT REFUSED TO GIVE CANONICAL RECOGNITION TO THE SSPX UNLES THEY ACCEPTED VATICAN COUNCIL SCHISMATICALLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE, IT WAS COERCION.EVEN TODAY THE TWO POPES DO NOT WANT THE WHOLE CHURCH TO INTERPRET MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS NON-SCISMATICALLY WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE.THEY WANT A HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE WITH THE PAST.
THEY WANT THE ECCLESIA DEI COMMUNITIES TO FOLLOW THE POPES SCHISMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL FOR CANONICAL RECOGNITION AND PERMISSION TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS.
If Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise there would be no liberalism.Ratzinger, Rahner,Cushing and Murray could do nothing.Now if Pope Francis interprets the Council with the rational premise the division, caused by liberalism, ends.It is the false premise which creates the liberal-conservative divide.Without the common fake premise there is no development of doctrine.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus today would be the same as the in the 16th century for Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and me.
With Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict hoped that the Society of St. Pius X would accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and also the non traditional, liberal conclusion.
It did not work out.
He announced that the SSPX problem was a doctrinal issue. They had to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, accept the non traditional conclusion and then they would not be in schism for rejecting Vatican Council II.
He did not tell them that he was in schism . Since there were two interpretations of the Council, one rational and the other irrational, if the SSPX would accept Vatican Council II with the rational premise there would be no break with the past Magisterium and Tradition.
If Pope Benedict does not confuse what is invisible as being physically visible in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, he would be Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He would be ecclesiocentric. Then much of his writings in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus , which are Christocentric only, would be non Magisterial.Since he used the false premise and so rejected the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.There was a New Theology created with the fake premise.
When Pope Benedict refused to give canonical recognition to the SSPX , unless they accepted Vatican Council II with the false premise,it was coercion.Even today the two popes and the Left do not want the SSPX , and the whole Church, to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise.
They want the Ecclesia Dei communities to follow the popes’ schismatic interpretation of the Council for canonical recognition and permission to offer the Latin Mass. This is the familiar coercion. .-Lionel Andrades
To my Catholic Protestant friend:
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” -- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90).
I'm not a sede. Sedes claim that chair is Vacant. I say that there is an imposter (Antipope) sitting in the chair.
THE POPE CANNOT INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II SCHISMATICALLY AND EXPECT THE ECCLESIA DEI COMMUNTIES AND THE REST OF THE CHURCH TO DO THE SAME.THE POPE IS REJECTING THE RATIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL INTERPRETED RATIONALLY OR IRRATIONALLY IS NOW AN ISSUE IN THE CHURCH.WE NOW HAVE OFFICIAL HERESY. THERE IS OFFICIAL SCHISM WITH THE PAST MAGISTERIUM. COURTELAIN DID NOT MENTION THIS POINT.
There is only one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.It’s with a rational premise.So there is no change in the teachings of the Catholic Church.The Ecclesia Dei communities meeting at Courtalain, France, August 31, 2021 had to confirm this.So when there is any reference to Vatican Council II it is understood that only the rational interpretation of the Council has to be chosen.If the pope does not affirm the traditional teachings of the Church, and chooses an irrational interpretion of the Council, with an irrational premise, he is in schism.Since the irrational premise has to create a rupture with de fide teachings ( Creeds and Catechisms).
If he interprets Vatican Council II schismatically with the false premise, he is in schism and his interpretation is not Magisterial and binding on all Catholics.The pope cannot interpret Vatican Council II schismatically and expect the Ecclesia Dei communities and the rest of the Novus Ordo Church to do the same.
Why should the Latin Mass Societies , Una Voce International and the Catholic Bishops Conference, who follow the pope, for example in Britain, interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, create a break with Tradition and consider this the norm ?
The Ecclesia Dei communities statement at Courtalain missed out on this point.The pope is in schism and he wants them to also accept schism by rejecting the rational interpretation of the Council.
Lay Catholics Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw, Peter Kwasniewski and John Henry Weston are ready to attend the Latin Mass and interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise, like Pope Francis, and so support a break with Tradition and also support manifest schism.This is approved by the Left.
Pope Francis is asking the Ecclesia Dei communities to accept Vatican Council II irrationally and schismatically, and they are going along with him.This was also the schismatic interpretation of Pope Benedict and they were content with it.
Before they have a meeting with Pope Francis and welcome apostolic visitors, these communities must clarify that they choose to interpret Vatican Council II non schismatically , with the rational premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.If they choose the irrational premise ( invisible people are visible in 2021) then the Council is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed ( all need Catholic faith for salvation).It contradicts the First Commandment( there is true worship in other religions with other gods).It changes the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church in which membership is not always needed for salvation) and ( I beleive in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and also three or more known baptisms( desire, blood, invincible ignorance etc), which exclude the baptism of water and so they are practical exceptions to EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
This is official heresy. It is also official schism with the past Magisterium.The false premise is used to create a new fake theology.This is unethical.The Ecclesia Dei communities are being coerced, to accept the New Theology and the fake interpretation of the Council, in exchange for canonical recognition and permission to offer the Latin Mass.
In Switzerland, Bishop Charles Morerod op would not allow the Society of St.Pius X to use the churches for Holy Mass in Latin.He said here was a doctrinal problem.He wanted the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II schismatically with the irrational premise and accept the non traditional conclusion.He was supported by Pope Benedict.
The Ecclesia Dei communities must demand that Bishop Morerod interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and that he reject his schismatic version of the Council.It is created with the New Theology.They should also demand that all Apostolic Visitors to their communties do the same.
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally or irrationally is now an issue in the Church and the National Catechectical Offices and the Bishops Conferences, have no right to interpret the Council irrationally, creating schism and heresy, and expect the Ecclesia Dei communities to follow them. -Lionel Andrades
Anonymous 12.03pm and Hammer
Amen Anonymous and take heed Hammer. We owe our allegiance to the pope, but which pope Hammer? Simples: to the one who is reigning. But both call themselves popes - one emeritus, the other Bishop of Rome - so who do we follow? It is very straight forward because it is evident that Pope Benedict XVI did not resign the See of Peter. Very evident. It is all in canon law. I will not try to go through this now but advise you to go to fromrome.info where a very knowledgeable and expert latinist has laid it all out.
We are living undoubtedly in the greatest crisis of the Church which Our Blessed Lord told us about 2,000 years ago. This is the Great Apostasy where the vast majority will follow both the antipope and antichrist. The man masquerading under the stage name of Francis is an imposter and is the Antipope (the False Prophet). Get out of this false church, and if you cannot find a priest in communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, then do not go to Mass because all Masses said in communion with an antipope merit nothing, even the traditional ones. Have faith, pray the Rosary, staying close to Our Lady, oh and avoid the death jab. I am in the UK and I know that there is no priest in union with Benedict. I know of a priest in France who is, which is great as I can have Masses said knowing that merits can be accrued from a worthy sacrifice.
Those institutes trying to curry favour with the false church will get burned. We have to go out to the barns and hills to preserve our Holy Church.
Sedevacantism is a false road because we have our pope. They believe that there has ben no pope since 1958 and Pius XII was the last, but that is their opinion and not of the Church
Trust in the Lord and His Blessed Mother. The apocalypse is upon us.
In Domino
Se
@Lionel, do you mind not clogging up Vox's blog every time with the same essays that you post on other blogs, whether it's even relevant to the specific post or not? You have a pattern of this and it's extremely annoying, with all due respect.
When Jessica Gregori met St. Lucia and told Pope John Paul II about the Third Secret of Fatima the whole Church was already in apostasy interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise to make Tradition obsolete.
Archbishop Carlo Vigano has stated according to Life Site News (Sep 3, 2021) that Our Lady warned of a great apostasy in the Church.
Our Lady spoke to the Gregori family, after their statue of Mary had started to shed tears of blood on February 2, 1995. She made clear that this apparition is linked to her apparitions in Fatima. She stated: “My children, the darkness of Satan is now obscuring the whole world and it is also obscuring the Church of God. Prepare to live what I had revealed to my little daughters of Fatima”…
It is important to know that Jessica Gregori, the daughter of the family who witnessed these apparitions and supernatural events, was given by Our Lady the content of the third secret of Fatima and that this message was then passed on to Pope John Paul II at the time. She herself was able to meet, in 1996, with Sister Lucia of Fatima and to compare with her the messages they received concerning the third secret. They matched. 1
The original interview of Archbishop Vigano was with a Portugese publication and was translated into English for the magazine Vatican Insider.2
Vigano refers often to Vatican Council II in the original interview and draws from a book by Father Flavio Ubodi,the vice-president of the diocesan commission which approved the apparitions at Civitavecchia, Italy, and so the miraculous statue was placed in a church for veneration. Ubodi has recently published a book, in Italian, called Civitavecchia- 25 years with Mary.
But Vigano has not said that the apostasy is already there in the Church from the pope to the parish priest and that he is also part of the problem.
Peter Kwasniewski’s books and articles in general are written , for example, interpreting Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents deceptively with a false premise.In this way he does not have to affirm Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).He is not ‘racist’ or ‘extremist’.So the Left allows him to speak at conferences and write his books with the error.
They are free to write and speak re-intepreting Vatican Council II with the fake premise.It means Kwasniewski and Vigano are rejecting the Athanasius Creed which says all need faith and baptism of salvation. Imaginary cases are politcally projected as exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors too.So these traditionalists are not really interested in proclaiming the truths of the Faith.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Vigano criticizes the great apostasy but he knows that he must interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise, since it would be a break with the liberals and ecclesiastics – but also with his traditionalist friends.
With the rational premise, there is no New Theology and when there is no New Theology,there is no New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc. There is no new schism and heresy.
I ask myself, how can the authenticity of apparitions like Medugorje be evaluated based upon faithfulness to Church doctrine, when the doctrines have been changed with an irrational premise and the popes are no more following the old Magisterium of the Catholic Church ?
Eric Sammons has written a book titled Deadly Indifference on how the Church has lost its mission and how we can re-claim it.In the book Sammons could not affirm the absolutist interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation. The false premise was used by him to create what he called the Salvation Spectrum. He was denying the Faith with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and of course did connect his error with the title of the book.He was going along with the New Theology of the liberals that creates the Salvation Spectrum and religious indifferentism...So they appointed him Editor in Chief of Crisis Magazine.
We see the apostasy when John Salza refuses to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise and so have to theologically affirm the absolutist interpretation of EENS.This would not help his career as a lawyer.So in an article on the blog 1Peter5 he calls on Catholics to not join sedevacantist communities.Instead he wants them to stay with his apostasy in the Church. Some choice.
When Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone closed the Fatima apparitions,they did not tell the world that all the books on Vatican Council II, were written with a fake premise to produce a fake rupture with Tradition, which would contribute to the existing apostasy which Our Lady predicted at Fatima.
Their interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS was political and not honest.Their interpretation of the Third Secret could also be political and not honest.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA HIDDEN
Pope Benedict kept the Third Secret of Fatima-apostasy- hidden since he was part of the apostasy with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.It is political and not Magisterial.
If the Third Secret of Fatima was about apostasy in the Church how could he say it .Since he was actively interpreting the Creeds, Catechisms, EENS, Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the false premise.He had approved the non traditional and schismatic premise, inference and conclusion of Church documents.
Recently Bishop Athanasius Schneider told Dr. Taylor Marshall in an interview, that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. This would be explosive for Pope Benedict. Since Schneider is saying that we do not need the New Theology. LG 14( baptism of desire) is not an example of an objective exception to EENS.There could be an EENS with no known exceptions. The Council in LG 14 etc does not contradict the understanding of EENS, according to the missionaries of the 16th century.So he was also telling Cardinal Marx that he and Taylor Marshall, do not interpret the Council like Marx and the German Bishops and Pope Benedict.There is no theological basis today for the German Synodal Path, when the New Theology is put aside.
With that statement Bishop Schneider is putting on hold the two popes interpretation of the Council and the spread of apostasy.-Lionel Andrades
1
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-our-lady-warned-of-great-apostasy-in-church-followed-by-risk-of-world-war-iii/
2.
https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-8-vigano-on-the-unrevealed-third-secret-of-fatima/
@Lionel, I guess you missed the comment as you just did the exact same thing again. Seriously, post these essay length irrelevant posts on your own blog. Really irritating trying to scroll through all your comments to read people who are actually discussing the issue in the thread as would be normal.
Lionel,
I stopped posting your comments before because of this. I can be soft at times, thinking I should be charitable to you but it is becoming too much.
Confine your comment to the post and enough of the Vatican II EENS rant.
We get it!
David
It is documented that captives who feared their death so much and didn't want to die during the second World War, were given a chance to survive by shooting at their own brother-in-arms. Some among them killed their best friends. Then these traitors were executed next to them by the Nazis, and some were allowed to enter and serve the Nazis Polizei forces.
Vox,
With reference to the post above- the Communique of the Ecclesia Dei communities.
They need to understand the following.It is very important.
VATICAN COUNCIL II SUPPORTS FR.JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY SJ WHEN IT IS INTERPRETED IRRATIONALLY AND MONS. JOSEPH CLIFFORD FENTON WHEN IT IS INTERPRETED RATIONALLY. POPE PAUL VI CHOSE THE IRRATIONAL VERSION OF THE COUNCIL WHEN HE HAD A CHOICE.
Vatican Council II supports Fr. John Courtney Murray sj when it is interpreted irrationally and Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton when it is interpreted rationally.Pope Paul VI chose the irrational version of the Council when he had a choice.The popes and the SSPX choose the irrational version too today, like the liberals and conservative Catholics.
When the Council is interpreted with the rational premise, the Church will once again be conservative.It will support Le Pen and Salvini and not Macron and Matterella.
Vatican Council II since Paul VI has been interpreted with a false premise, so there is alleged ‘known salvation’, in personal cases in the present times (1965-2021) outside the Church.This is deceptive. The message is that outside the Church, without ‘faith and the baptism of water, there are known non Catholics saved. So the New Theology says outside the Church there is salvation.The past ecclesiocentrism has been made obsolete with exceptions.We have a New Theology which permits general liberalism,new ecumenism etc. It is with this New Theology that Fr.John Courtney Murray sj could present his new theories on religious liberty, Church-State separation etc.
With this liberalism, Le Pen in France and Salvini in Italy, will continue to have the Catholic Church against them.
BISHOP SCHNEIDER CLOSES THE DOOR TO LIBERALISM
Bishop Athanasius Schneider was closing the door to liberalism when he said there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire(Lumen Gentium 14).For him LG 14 etc being invisible and theoretical were not practical exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( ecumenism of return and outside the Church no salvation), in the present times (1965-2021).
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
With the past exclusivist ecclesiology supported by Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation.All.) and LG 14 etc not being an exception to Ad Gentes 7, there is no block in the Council to oppose the proclaiming of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation.This is the rational approach i.e hypothetical cases of LG 14 etc, remain hypothetical only.
Roberto dei Mattei and Peter Kwasniewski may affirm the Social Reign of Chrst the King but they negate it with their irrational interpreation of Vatican Council II. The St.Benedict Centers too support the past ecclesiocentrism but negate it like the liberals, when they do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally. LG 14 etc have to refer to visible cases for them to be exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors. And if there is salvation outside the Church, if there are exceptions for EENS, then why proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King ?
This is important to remember during elections.All Catholics, should only vote for political candidates who affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, and interpret Vatican Council II rationally, unlike Mattei and the others.
When Vatican Council II is interpreted with the rational premise there is no separation between the traditional Church and conservative political parties and politicians.Le Pen and Salvini would not have the Church agaist them.
With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II the Church would be saying that the migrants need faith and baptism for salvation.They would have to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church, and live the faith and moral teachings, and avail of the Sacraments, to avoid Hell.
God would be at the centre of political activity and legislation ( pro –life, Ten Commandments, virtues of modesty and chastity in public etc) and not Satan ( abortion, contraception, pornography, immodesty in public, homosexual unions etc).
Arcbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and the Lefebvrist group support Satan and the Masons when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational and not rational premise.The fruits are bad. It’s the same with John Henry Weston, Marco Tosatti, Joseph Shaw and others. They could choose the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and be politically incorrect with the Left.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
There are only politically correct candidates for the elections for the Mayor’s office in Rome.There is no political party which proclaims the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, and interprets Vatican Council II rationally.
The laity, like the FSSP and SSPX, do not interpret the Council rationally.So theologically, they support the Left, knowingly or unknowingly.
Le Pen and Salvini in ignorance allow Pope Francis to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and they keep silent on this politico-religious issue.It’s the same with Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke. There are no protests.
Even in France the bloggers at Riposte Catholique, Salon Beige,Met etc, do not ask the French Bishops Conference and Bishop Roland Mitterand in Dijon, to accept and interpret Vatican Council II rationally.This is a political and religious issue in the Catholic Church.
The traditionelle and militante in France must accept a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.Since the liberals in France need a theology on which to peg their liberalism.They need the false premise and the traditionelle must not hand it over to them in silence. It was the same for Fr. John Courtney Murray sj and today for Pope Francis.The theology had to be created and the only way it was done was by using a false premise.Without the false premise,which creates the New Theology, there is no liberalism.This was not known to Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton and Fr. John Courtney Murray sj in their sparring over the issue of Religious Liberty.
We have a new discovery after some 50 years. We now know that there are two interpretations of the Council and John Courtney Murray has been made obsolete.-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
Lionel,
I am not posting any more comments if you write in CAPS, stop yelling. I have deleted four.
Try again please,
David
ose guadalupe rodriguez said...
Clearly submission to the holy father,to the supreme pontiff, to pope francis, to the bergoglian magisterium, to lumen gentium #25, to the vatican II.
Lionel:
No. With the false premise there is no submission to Pope Francis, Vatican Council II ( with the irrational premise) etc.
This is the point of my comments here on this thread.
I want the Ecclesia Dei communities to know that they can interpret Vatican Council II with a rational or irrational premise and the conclusion will be different. It will be traditional or non traditional. This hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition does not depend upon Pope Francis or the CDF.
The issue is the rational premise.
____________________
Anonymous said...
Vatican II is a counterfeit church headed by an imposter. It is not the church of Christ. Fake and corrupted. The blind leading the blind. It includes delusional FSSP and SSPX priests, - many of them are honest (but delusional), and will wake up shortly. Vatican II religion serves the NWO agenda. There are no negotiations with Judases. All faithful will go underground soon to celebrate TLM. Some already started new covenants and monasteries. After a while, Holy Ghost will gather these souls and renew Catholic Church, the true church of Christ.
Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors and EENS.The Council then is traditional and it is not just pastoral. It does not contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc and so it is dogmatic.
Without the false premise and with the rational premise the Council is dogmatic.
The message again is -use the rational premise to interpret Vatican Council II and also other Magisterial documents and you return to Tradition without having to reject the Council.
This is not because I say so but because this happens every time you use the rational premise. You can see it for yourself. This is independent of me.-Lionel Andrades
Anonymous Anonymous said...
They sound like terrified beggars who expect to be squashed.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
What a fawning, sickening statement they came up with. Absolutely useless. If that's all the response they have then they are done for, Bergoglio and his ilk will devour their institutes just like the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
Lionel:
They are on the defensive since they do not know about Vatican Council II interpreted with a rational premise.
It is Pope Francis and Pope Benedict who are in schism and heresy with their irrational interpretation of the Council. This error has to be exposed by the Ecclesia Dei communities.
Why should Catholics interpret the Council with the irrational premise and create a rupture with Tradition ? There is a choice.
Why should the Ecclesia Dei communities continue to interpret the Council with an irrational premise , which produces a schismatic result, and then continue to be obedient ?
They must tell the present two popes to interpret the Council with the rational premise and then support Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the strict interpretation of EENS, supported by Vatican Council II ( rational).
They must tell the two popes to affirm the traditional ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church for all Christians, since Unitatatis Redintigratio 3 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They must demand that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict return to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church since there is nothing in the entire text of Lumen Gentium to contradict the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
They do not have to be fawning. Theology and doctrine is on their side. -Lionel Andrades
Anonymous Paul Dale said...
We owe our allegiance to the pope, but which pope Hammer? Simples: to the one who is reigning. But both call themselves popes - one emeritus, the other Bishop of Rome - so who do we follow? It is very straight forward because it is evident that Pope Benedict XVI did not resign the See of Peter. Very evident. It is all in canon law. I will not try to go through this now but advise you to go to fromrome.info where a very knowledgeable and expert latinist has laid it all out.
Lionel:
On this thread I have been trying to show how important it is to interpret Church Documents with a rational and not irrational premise.
Both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are using the same New Theology created with a false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion. So they are schismatically in a break with the past Magisterium.
Similarly From Rome.info is also interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise.
This is something evident. Don't take my word for it. You can consciously interpret the Council with a false or rational premise and the conclusion will be different. You can see it for yourself.
The sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery and the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae use the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance to create a break with 16th century EENS.Neither can the two say in public that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not literal cases. I have been asking them this for a few years now.
If they say that the baptism of desire etc are not literal cases in 2021 then they would have to say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are also not literal cases and so are not a break with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus etc).
This means they were wrong all these years and Vatican Council II is no reason to go into sedevacantism.So they simply block me, end the discussion or do not answer.
This is also the issue with the Ecclesia Dei communities.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 9, 2021
The Superior Generals of the Ecclesia Dei communities are not proclaiming the Catholic Faith- on faith and morals. They are not interpreting Vatican Council II in harmony with the past Magisterium.They do not want to die as martrys.
The Ecclesia Dei communities support the schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Francis and not my non schismatic interpretation of the Council.
They cannot teach the Catholic Faith in general to lay Catholics and now not even affirm it in public before Pope Francis.
The laity in France, for example, can no more count on the French Bishops Conference to explain how Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
The Institute of Christ the King, for example, permits one of its priests in Dijone, France, to work as Assistant to the Diocesan Parish Priest at Mass in Latin.The priest from the traditionalist community interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise to create a rupture with Tradition. It is the same with the diocesan priests and Bishop Roland Mitterand.They are both using the unethical New Theology which is approved by the French Bishops Conference and Pope Francis.
The Superior Generals of the Ecclesia Dei communities are not proclaiming the Catholic Faith- on faith and morals. They are not interpreting Vatican Council II in harmony with the past Magisterium.They do not want to die as martrys.
The Ecclesia Dei communities must not hide behind Vatican Council II any more.They must not let Pope Francis play the Vatican Council II card and support his liberalism. They must proclaim Tradition in harmony with the Council interpreted with the rational premise.-Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment