POPE LEO CAN BRING THE MAINLINE CHURCH OUT OF SCHISM WITH ONE STEP
POPE LEO CAN BRING THE MAINLINE CHURCH OUT OF SCHISM WITH ONE STEP
The mainline Catholic Church is in official schism but it can change overnight. Pope Leo has only to interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II as referring to invisible and hypothetical cases.
That’s all. This is all he has to say for the Catholic Church to make a major U-turn in philosophy and theology. Interestingly, this is the same mistake made by the sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X on Vatican Council II. They all interpret the Council irrationally while I choose to be rational and so traditional and no schismatic.
So Pope Leo has to only make one announcement which is, that LG 8,14,16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.
It is with one step the Church returns to Tradition.
It is like when you bring a magnet close to iron filings in disarray they all harmonize. One step is needed.
Similarly by watering the root of a tree the whole tree is nourished, bark, leaves, flowers etc. One step is needed.
The mainline Church went into official schism in 1949 and then, in a big way, in 1965.
So schism today is the official theology. It is not only the liberals who are in schism but also the sedevacantists and traditionalists.
1.For all of them the Athanasius Creed has exceptions but not for me.
2.For all of them the dogma EENS has exceptions but not for me and neither for the popes and saints over the centuries.
3.For all of them CCC 847 contradicts CCC 846 but not for me.
4.For them the Nicene Creed refers to three known baptism which exclude the baptism of water but for me it is only one visible and repeatable baptism.This is the common mistake of the SSPX.
5.For them the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that outside the Church there is known salvation but for me the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that outside the Church there is no salvation.
So there understanding of the one, holy. Catholic and apostolic Church is different from mine.
My interpretations are in line with the Apostles, the Church Fathers and the popes in the Middle Ages who did not project invisible cases as being visible exceptions for the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.
So we do not have unity on the Catechism of the Catholic Church but also the Catechism of Pope Pius X. For them, 24Q and 27Q are contradicted by 29Q but not for me.This is an SSPX , sedevacantist doctrinal error.
Recently Pope Leo affirmed Jesus as the Only Saviour of the world. Yes. This is true. However the Protestants also believe in this.
The pope did not say that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. So by his omission he was in a rupture with the Magisterium, of for example the 16th century.
Christocentrism is part of the New Ecumenism but Christocentrism and Ecclesiocentrism are part of the Traditional Ecumenism now supported by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
Without the mistake o Pope Pius XII in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston and Pope Paul VI in 1965, Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and traditional. It is no more in schism with the ecclesiology of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena and St.John of the Cross.
Here are 10 common mistakes I mentioned in my report yesterday.
COMMON MISTAKES CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER AND BISHOP ROBERT BARRON MAKE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II (Interview of Cardinal Muller by Bishop Barron).
1. The empirical error, the false philosophy is invisible cases in 2025 are physically visible.
2. The new theology, the false theology is outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation in particular cases in 2025. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is made obsolete and so is the rest of Tradition.
Without this philosophical and theological error Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric just like traditional mission over the centuries. Membership in the Catholic Church with faith and baptism (Ad Gentes 7, CCC 846) is necessary for salvation from Hell.
With Vatican Council II no more being liberal the Church returns to the pre-1949 ecclesiocentric mission and outreach.
3.If the bishop or cardinal affirms Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, rationally, he supports the ecclesiocentrism of the dogma EENS, the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal and the rest of Tradition. He can no more be a liberal since the Council is no more liberal when interpreted honestly.
4. The bishop has to avoid the Rahner-Ratzinger-Lefebvre new theology and then it is a simple return to Tradition, carrying along Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, also interpreted without the new theology ( LG 16 is visible).
5. The bishop still uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II. They also do the same in the archdiocese of Detroit, Rome and the Vatican. This is an issue in the secular realm. The people do not know about it.
They are also interpreting Church Documents with the heresy and schism of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. This is a canonical issue.
So we have a secular and canonical issue in Charlotte, Detroit, Fort Worth, Rome, and Chicago…
7.
6. When what is invisible is confused as being visible I call it Cushingism. When what is invisible is seen as just being invisible I call it Feeneyism.
The Roman Missal is Feeneyite but the New Missal is Cushingite.It is not ecclesiocentric like Vatican Council II, rational. Something important is missing. So it cannot be the lex orandi, in its present state, until it is updated. Why must the Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans be allowed to use the New Missal when it is not aligned with the ecclesiology of the founders of their religious orders and neither with Vatican Council II? This is the norm for the Latin Mass group?
7. So the Latin Mass groups cannot accept the New Missal as the norm in the Church when it is Cushingite? The Novus Ordo and Latin Mass must have a Missal which is Feeneyite. It is the same at every liturgy and rite since Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and not Cushingite. It is rational and not irrational. It is traditional and not non traditional.
8.They call their Cushingite interpretation; the confusing of what is implicit as being explicit, a ‘nuanced interpretation’. This tern was used by Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria in papers of the International Theological Commission.The ‘nuance’ emerges after they confuse what is invisible as being visible. So visible cases of LG 16 etc are visible examples of salvation outside the Church for them and so LG 16 contradicts the ‘strict interpretation’ of the dogma EENS.
9. So there is the nuanced, baptism of desire (irrational), dogma EENS (irrational), Athanasius Creed (irrational with alleged practical exceptions). This is the nuanced interpretation. It is approved by the political left and is dishonest.
For me baptism of desire is rational, the dogma EENS is rational, the Athanasius Creed is rational and Vatican Council II and all the catechisms are rational.
10. For both the speakers above LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible cases in 2026 and for me they are visible. They have to be visible and known for them to be exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but not me. They cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed, since it has exceptions for them. It does not have exceptions for me. So on the Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II, rational and the dogma EENS rational without exceptions of visible cases of the baptism fo desire they are schismatic. They are in schism with the magisterium, for example of the 16th century, which was in general rational in the interpretation of Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils and Catechisms). They make the same mistake as the Society of St Pius X, the sedevantists MHFM, CMRI, MHT etc. They are all irrational on Vatican Council II while I am rational. - Lionel Andrades
Bishop Barron and Cardinal Müller have both …