WHEN POPE LEO AFFIRMS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY HE AFFIRMS FEENEYIT EENS. THE COUNCIL IS …
27.10.2025
WHEN POPE LEO AFFIRMS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY HE AFFIRMS FEENEYITE EENS. THE COUNCIL IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC WITH NO EXCEPTIONS FOR TRADITION : 98 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
If there is a table before me and I see a chair then my observation is wrong. If I mistake a window for a door then this is an error of observation. It is an objective mistake. This is not philosophy or theology. It is a physically observable mistake. It is a wrong way of physically looking at something. So if 10 people see a table and the 11th sees a chair instead, then his reality is different. It is an empirical mistake. It is a mistake in space and time.
In general people do not make this mistake. They call a chair a chair and a table a table. Observation is normal.
But in 1949 a Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston was issued from Rome. It wrongly suggested that we humans can see someone saved with the baptism of desire. But today we know that we cannot physically see …More
Vatican II is irrational so cannot be affirmed rationally.
However the rational version is traditional. It is apostolic and magisterial. It is not a rupture with the past. It must be accepted. It is the only version of the Council which is ethical.
What about Cardinal Cupich’s new appointment?
He does not accept Vatican Council II. He is a modernist. He does not interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally. This is public schism. It is a type of apostasy. He is a modernist. Why must I attend his Holy Mass in Rome when he does not end this scandal?
@Lionel Leslie Andrades
"the rational version is traditional. It is apostolic and magisterial. It is not a rupture with the past. "
"Vatican II" is not traditional, not apostolic and not magisterial. It is not an ecumenical (in the traditional meaning i.e. as Trent or Vatican I for example) council at all.
"It must be accepted."
--
It fact - it must not. How can you accept baloney like;
"According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown." (GS 12)
"the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, together with us adore the one and merciful God" (LG 16)
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [i.e. false] religions" [NA 2] or
"It follows that the separated Churches [i.e. Eastern schismatics] and Communities [i.e. Protestant sects] as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church" [UR 3]?
"What about Cardinal Cupich’s new appointment? He does not accept Vatican Council II. He is a modernist"
---
I do not know - but quite the opposite is usually true i.e. "he accepts Vatican Council II - he is a modernist"
"He does not interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally"
----
Again: what "councils" and "catechisms"? as the JPII's one is heterodox and irrational.