VATICAN COUNCIL II SUPPORTS FR. LEONARD FEENEY WAS RATZINGERS HIDDEN SECRET: LEFEBVRE DID NOT KNOW
VATICAN COUNCIL II SUPPORTS FR. LEONARD FEENEY WAS RATZINGERS HIDDEN SECRET: LEFEBVRE DID NOT KNOW
This is the discovery now. Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is aligned doctrinally with Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.
The entire Vatican Council II drama would have been avoided, if Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced that LG 8, 14, 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases only. So Vatican Council II has no explicit exceptions for Feeneyite EENS, the EENS of the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century. LG 8, 14, 16 refer to invisible cases was the secret. He kept it hidden.
The Council is traditional and not liberal any more- this is the bottom line.
Today we know. It is like the Council has done a somersault, a grand U-turn. With Vatican Council II aligned with Tradition (Syllabus, EENS, Athanasius Creed, etc), the Council is no more ‘a revolution’ or ‘a new revelation ‘in the Catholic Church. Reuters and Associated Press need to correct their reports on Vatican Council II.
John Courtney Murray made a mistake and so did Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Lubac, Balthazar, Kung and others. But so also did Lefebvre, Ottaviani, Romano Amerio, Michael Davies, Hildebrand, Plineo Correa D’Oliveira, Roberto dei Mattei, Christopher Ferrara, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others.
So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney was irrational, dishonest and political and schismatic. The baptism of desire, never ever was an exception for EENS, over the centuries.
The Americanists re-interpreted invisible baptism of desire as being visible and then projected it as an explicit exception for the exclusivist ecclesiology of the old Roman Missal.
So today with the new discovery of LG 8, 14, 18, UR 3, NA 23, GS 22 etc, being invisible, Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II is aligned with Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of his time and there still, are no known exceptions. Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell this to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
There no more is a New Theology founded upon alleged exceptions in Vatican Council II, for the dogma EENS. In real life there are no exceptions. Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar and others were in schism with the Magisterium over the centuries and so are the two SSPX bishops today, who also do not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and in harmony with Tradition.
The liberal Synods have no theological base in a rational Vatican Council II. There is no change in traditional faith, morals, mission, exclusivist ecclesiology etc. The Church has returned to Feeneyite - outside the Church there is no salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still Magisterial like Vatican Council II.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (845-846) says outside the Church there is no salvation and includes Ad Gentes 7. It is not contradicted by hypothetical cases mentioned in CCC 847-848.
The hypothetical passages (marked in red) in Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate etc, do not contradict the orthodox (blue) passages in Vatican Council II. There is nothing in Nostra Aetate to contradict AG 7 or EENS.
All the books on Vatican Council II published by Ignatius are now obsolete. They include the books by Cardinals Ratzinger and Sarah. But also obsolete are the books on Vatican Council II, interpreted with the False Premise, and published by the Angelus Press of the SSPX.
Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custode and Fiducia Supplicans were based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and so are the non Magisterial Documents of Pope Leo. They cannot be Magisterial when Vatican Council II is interpreted with a Fake Premise. The Holy Spirit will not use a False Premise to interpret the Council. This is a public mistake, a political one, made by Pope Leo.
Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly when a rational and ethical option is there?
How can Pope Leo be magisterial, supporting the LGBT agenda? He no more has Vatican Council II irrational, to defend himself.
Why should the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married? There is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church with Vatican Council II, rational.
In Heaven there are only Catholics (AG 7, CCC 845-846 etc). There is no liberal theology in Vatican Council II, rational, to support Pope Francis’ Abu Dhabi declaration. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel is outside the Catholic Church and so are members of the Islamic governments.
We are back to the apologetics of the 1930’s –intact- with Vatican Council II rational.
Pope Leo can issue new encyclicals but the pope now knows that Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally. This is a discovery of a reality. So morally he can no more interpret the Council dishonestly.
A traditionalist today, is one who affirms a Vatican Council II aligned with Tradition. The 1965 traditionalist-liberal division is finished. The Council is no more liberal.
‘You are either a Catholic or damned’ said Fr. Leonard Feeney now supported by the Conciliar Church. The liberal ‘reforms of Vatican Council II’ have crumbled. They were schismatic.
The Council is aligned with the traditionalist from Boston. The Council is aligned with the Roman Missal which is Feeneyite and not the Missal of Pope Paul VI, which is Cushingite. With Vatican Council II rational, the Latin, Ambrosian, Syro Malabar and Novus Ordo liturgies have to be only Feeneyite i.e. LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases. The New Missal is Cushingite, i.e. LG 8, 14 16 etc refer to visible cases which are exceptions for the dogma EENS, which is not affirmed at the Novus Ordo Mass.
Every cardinal, bishop and priest will have to follow Feeneyite Tradition, doctrinally, or be hit with a canonical petition, accusing him of schism. Cardinals McElroy, Radcliffe, Cupich, O’Malley can no more defend themselves with Vatican Council II interpreted unethically, confusing what is implicit as being explicit. In schism they are automatically excommunicated.
It was Ratzinger and Rahner who had to be excommunicated and not Feeney and Lefebvre.
We no more have a schismatic Church created with a fake premise and inference and so schismatic conclusion.
It was Ratzinger, Rahner, Congar, Balthazar and Kung and others, who had to be excommunicated since Karl Rahner’s LG 16 visible premise was heresy and schism. Rahner’s book, The Christian of the Future’, has no support in Vatican Council II, rational. It is the same with Fr. Hans Kung’s books based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. Rahner’s books need to be pulled back. The Council supports the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA, on Vatican Council II and EENS. This is the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney - Lionel Andrades