There has been a lot of talk lately about the Second Vatican Council and how it ought to be set aside or relegated from its ecumenical status. This is quite impossible and improper. It is precisely the sort of idea liberals have been floating about many of the other councils. It cannot be accepted or even tolerated. The Council infallibly defined in a number of areas and these definitions must be accepted. Vatican II was a validly convened Ecumenical Council and must be accepted as such.
However, it is very clear that the twenty-first council was associated with many rash and frankly presumptuous prudential decisions. The very idea of holding an Ecumencial Council for no particular reason and then deliberately defining no dogmas and issuing no canons while putting forth volumes of merely authentic teaching is wrong. It is putting God to the test. Bishops at the council openly propounded heretical doctrines and nothing was done. Cardinal Franz König of Vienna openly denied the inerrancy of Scripture. Others praised the monstrous writings of Teilhard de Chardin. Ambiguities intended to favour heresy were introduced into the texts. The reforms proposed by Sacrosanctum Concilium were similarly ambiguous in order to facilitate the outrageous and illicit confection of a ‘New Rite’ of the Mass by Paul VI.
These wicked acts must be frankly acknowledged and atoned for by another Ecumenical Council in a definitive way. The public and complete atonement for the blasphemies of the last sixty years must be comprehensive. Just as Cardinal Pole frankly acknowledged the crimes of the Roman Curia and the episcopate at the beginning of Trent so too the Council of restoration must, and even more solemnly, confess the sins of the prelacy and beg Almighty God to put an end to the plague of apostasy, corruption and unnatural vice that has laid waste to the Church.
All the errors and heresies favoured by the ambiguities in Vatican II’s merely authentic teaching must be solemnly condemned. It must be solemnly defined that the Novus Ordo was illicit and that Popes do not have the authority to create ‘new rites’ of this kind. Heretics such as Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin must be solemnly condemned by name along with their adherents and the errors of authors such as Maritain and de Lubac openly identified, attributed to them by name and proscribed. If possible, priestly ordinations should henceforth be conducted only by bishops without the Novus Ordo in their episcopal line. Not because the Novus Ordo is invalid but in recognition of the offence it has given to God. This Council must not flinch from holding the present occupant of the highest See to the same standards as Honorius was held in 681 and binding all his successors to recognise their verdict in that matter.
Laodicea 
July 16, 2020 at 7:42 pm
What do you think of this article?
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/07/de-mattei-fake-news-no-historical-truth.html
July 16, 2020 at 8:17 pm
Neither Gregory XII nor Martin V recognised anything done by the assembly before 4th July 1415 as ecumenical.
July 16, 2020 at 8:22 pm
So the phrase «in favorem fidei et salutem animarum» saves the day?
July 16, 2020 at 8:27 pm
As I understand it Martin V only recognised the acts of Constance done ‘in a conciliar way’ and Gregory XII expressly nullified everything done by the assembly before he convened it.
July 16, 2020 at 8:29 pm
If Haec Sancta was ever confirmed we are in serious trouble because it begins “In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God’s church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God’s church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely….” R dM seems to be taking an axe to the irreformability of the magisterium as such.
July 19, 2020 at 9:22 am
Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Sean Winters use the same false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Roberto dei Mattei in his writings mentions Congar,Rahner and other liberals who were present at Vatican Council II. Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter will also mention Rahner, Congar,Ratzinger and others who were responsible for Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition.
Both of them do not want to say that even though Congar, Rahner and Ratzinger were active at Vatican Council II, the break with Tradition is caused by a false premise . So without the false premise there is no rupture with Tradition even if Cushing, Murray and Bea were there.
It must be noted that even if Congar and Rahner were present at Vatican Council II they could not make the change, a break with Tradition, out of thin air. They had to produce a theology which would be accepted also by the conservatives. It had to get pass Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The acceptable theology was proposed before Vatican Council II. It was approved by Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre and the others, when the false premise was used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).With LOHO came the New Theology.
Pope John XXIII approved it and so did Pope Paul VI.There was not a single person who mentioned the precise cause for the ‘development of doctrine and dogma’ and the break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Athanasius Creed.
All they could say that X,Y and Z were there and so this was expected.
A New Theology was created in 1949 by confusing what was invisible( baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)) as being visible.Then it was postulated that these were exceptions to EENS.This was the New Theology which was also approved by Archbishop Lefebvre.It said outside the Church there is salvation.
I refer to the New Theology also as Lefebvrist theology, or Cushingism. Archbishop Richard Cushing to whom LOHO was addressed, approved the irrationality, with reference to BOD, BOB and I.I and EENS.
In principle the theology of Vatican Council II is Cushingite.Why had they to mention Unitatis Redintigratio( Decree on Ecumenism) 3 and the reference to being saved in imperfect communion with the Church ? How can invisible cases of being saved in imperfect communion with the Church which could only be known to God, be relevant to EENS or the old ecumenism ?
It was not relevant yet Ratzinger,Rahner, Congar, Murray and Bea among others, made it relevant at Vatican Council II.They assumed there were personally known(visible) Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church. So they created visible exceptions ?
Similarly why mention LG 8, GS 22 etc ? They are all theoretical and hypothetical cases and not exceptions to EENS.
Why does Ad Gentes 7 , which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, mention invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ? Why ? Since they were visible exceptions to EENS for some of the Council Fathers. In principle they accepted an error approved by the popes Pius XII and John XXIII.
Now we know, 55 years later, that Vatican Council II can only be a break with Tradition with the New Theology, Lefebvrist theology, Cushingite theology.
So we know what precisely causes the hermeneutic of rupture. We have found out the missing link. The secret is out.
So what if we do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? What if there are orthodox passages which support EENS and there are hypothetical passages which do not contradict EENS or the orthodox passages of Vatican Council II ?
Then there is no rupture with EENS or the Athanasius Creed in Vatican Council II. None.
So even if Congar, Rahner and Ratzinger were present at the Council, Vatican Council II is orthodox and traditional. It supports exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church when the false premise is avoided. With the dogma EENS having no exceptions we are back to the old ecclesiology, the old ecumenism, traditional mission and the theological possibility to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation.
We undo the bad work of the liberals and Lefebvrists.
So when you continue to read that X,Y and Z were present at Vatican Council II, tell the writer to forget all that. It is meaningless.Since the Council can be interpreted without the false premise and there is no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
The Lefebvrists and liberals who know that there really is no rupture with Tradition in Vatican Council II and yet continue with the ruse, could be doing so for personal and practical reasons e.g to preserve their career, get donations etc.
I once briefly met Roberto dei Mattei at his office in Rome which seems to be part of a church or along side a church.If Mattei interprets Vatican Council II without the false premise and so has to affirm Feeneyite EENS, he could be asked by the Vicariate in Rome and the Vatican, to vacate.They may also not allow him to attend Mass in Latin at the FSSP church in Rome.
So he needs the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
Similarly Fr.John Zuhlsdorf told Michael Sean Winters that he did not affirm Feeneyite EENS.So he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise like Winters.He is allowed to be incardinated in the USA in the diocese of Madison.He is also allowed to offer Mass in Latin at the FSSP church in Rome, along with the other traditionalists who reject Tradition by using the false premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including the Creeds.
This could be the reason why the Federational International Una Voce(FIUV) and the Latin Mass Societies did not issue a statement when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) Secretaries, asked the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, to interpret invincible ignorance(Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848) as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
The politically correct FIUV interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition using the common error.It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Sean Winters.-Lionel Andrades
September 17, 2020 at 11:18 am
New Step by Step Map For news
September 17, 2020 at 5:30 pm
In the whole of Unitatis Redintigratio, Vatican Council II, there is nothing to contradict an ecumenism of return or the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), which refers to hypothetical cases only.
October 28, 2020 at 4:37 am
carmelia
Too much and too little | Laodicea