Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell Lefebvre and Feeney that VC 2 was traditional when the orthodox blue passages were not contradicted by the hypothetical red passages. Pope Leo and cardinals Fernandez, Muller and Ladaria maintain the secret today
Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell Lefebvre and Feeney that VC 2 was traditional when the orthodox blue passages were not contradicted by the hypothetical red passages. Pope Leo and cardinals Fernandez, Muller and Ladaria maintain the secret today
Cardinal Ratzinger kept it a secret. He did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre or Fr. Leonard Feeney in 1965 that Ad Gentes 7 (placed in CCC 846-outside the Church no salvation) was aligned with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Council of Florence 1442 (which did not mention any exceptions).Meanwhile LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II were not practical exceptions for EENS or AG 7. The Council was ecclesiocentric and traditional. Instead, Ratzinger allowed Feeney to remain excommunicated and he excommunicated Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops, including Fellay and Galaratta. Pope Leo and Cardinals Muller and Fernandez keep this information a secret. They prepare a second excommunication of the SSPX based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and dishonestly.
Ratzinger did not tell Lefebvre.
Pope Leo does not tell Pagliarani.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) supports the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition.
There can only be an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church, according to the text of the Council.
The Council is traditional on religious liberty and follows the old ecclesiology, based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church (AG 7, CCC 845,846 etc).
Inter-faith dialogue and traditional ecumenism is still part of traditional ecclesiocentric mission and evangelisation. We are back to past mission, with Vatican Council II rational. We are back to the doctrines of St. Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius of Loyola.
There is no other choice, the Council restricts us to Tradition.
Pope Leo in his recent letter to Fr. Davide Pagliarani as not informed the SSPX that they can interpret the Council rationally and so traditionally. So they are entitled to canonical recognition. All religious communicates and Catholic organisations must interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, only rationally.
Ratzinger did not tell Feeney and Lefebvre that LG 16 did not contradict AG 7 and EENS. The Council is aligned with EENS. Cardinal Muller maintains Rat zinger’s secret today. It is Pope Leo and the cardinals who are in schism with LG 16 visible etc.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, along with Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, Secretary of the CDF, did not tell Brother Andre Marie micm, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA, that the Council supported Feeneyite EENS. Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is aligned with the SBC and not the CDF/ DDF.
Tradition according to the SSPX and SBC is not compatible with Pope Leo’s irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II, rational, is not compatible with the doctrines of the Synods.
I affirm Tradition like the SSPX. The issue is Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II rational is aligned with Tradition. So I do not have to reject the Council. The Council is a doctrinal ally for me. It is my strong point.
Vatican Council II irrational is schism. Pope Leo and cardinals Fernandez, Cupich, Muller and Ladaria are in public schism. They want the SSPX to accept schism.
Lionel Andrades
What did Cardinal Ratzinger not tell Archbishop Lefebvre?
1. He did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to invisible and hypothetical cases in the present times. So invisible people could not be practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1442), the Athanasius Creed, an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Pius IX and the Catechism of St. Pius X on other religions not being paths to salvation /EENS. With Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation), Vatican Council II was aligned with EENS amd, the old ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass etc. LG 8,14,16 etc were not practical exceptions for AG 7, EENS, Athanasius Creed Roman Missal etc.
2. He did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF/ Holy Office) made an objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Implicit and theoretical cases of the baptism of desire etc were projected as practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. Invisible people cannot be practical exceptions for EENS. An exception must exist in our reality for it to be an exception. Someone ‘who is not there’ cannot be an exception. If there is a box of oranges with an apple in the middle, the apple is an exception because it is different but also because it is there in that box. If there are four tall boys at a street corner and a short one joins them then he is an exception because he is there at that street corner at that time.
There are no cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in our reality. These cases can only be known to God. We cannot say that there were five baptisms of desire cases this month or last year. This is something obvious. It is common knowledge.