Monday, July 10, 2017

Cardinal Wuerl "Vatican II being unleashed through Pope Francis"

Cardinal Wuerl thinks its just a small group of Catholics speaking out against heresy in Amoris Laetitiae.

I think we have to put this into perspective. For my perspective, the reaction you are speaking about is relatively focused, it is not a very large group, and it certainly isn’t reflected in the hierarchy of the Church, and I don’t see it reflected among most of the priests. So in a way, that’s a rather concentrated and in a certain sense esoteric discussion

There is nothing 'esoteric' about the discussion. Interesting he chose that word. In context, it seems he was conveying the small amount of people who managed to educate themselves through their fifty-year period of their starvation of catechesis.

While true faithful priests and bishops aren't speaking out in the public square, that doesn't mean they don't recognize and resent the Holy Father's introduction of heresy. It means they have eyes to see that the pope crushes the vocation of those speaking out and they are practicing prudence.

He's in the network of gay priests, bishops and Cardinals who are tickled pink Pope Francis is painting sins against the Sixth Commandment as virtuous. He's out of the loop.

When you hear the lavender mafia talk like this, it illustrates that their belief that Pope Francis is changing the de facto schism that has existed since "Vatican II" to a de jure schism.

I think that's accurate.

But I think they believe Jorge Bergolio will retain the Chair of Peter and slip the counterfeit church underneath it.

We'll see about that. They may want to brush up on what happened to Goliath.


Michael Dowd said...

Vatican II is the bomb that is destroying the Catholic Church, it's sacredness, it's morality, it's positive influence on society. The new "Club of Rome" is a coterie of homosexuals who now preside over a Church lost in the wilderness of decay. We can only pray that God will soon intervene in the affairs of the Church to rectify the abuses and place on a path of strict reformation.

Anonymous said...

Well since Vatican II was not a docturnal council we have nothing to fear, lol.

Edison Frisbee said...

At the end of the day, you're either with the Trads or the Modernists (who only vary by degree)....choose well.

Catholic Mission said...

He also refers to Vatican Council II and the Holy Spirit.There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).He and Pope Francis only know Vatican Council II (Cushingite). Vatican Council II(Cushingite) cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. Since it has false philosophical reasoning.There are objective errors and it violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Wuerl was the head of the USCCB Doctrinal Committe in the Fr.Peter C.Phan case. He assumed that there were visible cases of the baptism of desire etc which were objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This was the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. The magisterium assumed invisible people were visible exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.
This was the philosophical reasoning at Vatican Council II. The passages which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance (AG 7, LG 14) in Vatican Council II are superfluous. They should not have been there in the Council text.
They are there since the Council Fathers, like Cardinal Richard Cushing placed them there.He used a false premise(invisible baptism of desire are visible). His new theology was false( invisible cases are visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation on exclusive salvation in the Church), this is expressed in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc. He violated the Principle of Non Contradiction ( how can people in Heaven be visible exceptions on earth? ).His conclusion was false. Since how can INVISIBLE FOR US Lumen Gentium 16etc be considered visible and excluding the baptism of water?
So Vatican Council II becomes a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) and the Syllabus of Errors?
Obviously Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is different.It is without the false premise and conclusion of Cardinal Wuerl. It would be a different Vatican Council II.It would be traditional and not a rupture with Tradition. It would affirm the teachings of the Church, over the centuries, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Of course Card Wuerl will not be comfortable with this interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Anonymous said...

Paul VI said the second Vatican Council was not a dogmatic council unless the council declared it so with His approval. As the Council did not do so, Paul VI went on to say the Council defined nothing dogmatic, only pastoral. Therefore nothing new was of a de Fide nature. Which means the only dogmas that are de Fide in VC II are from previous councils and Popes. Which finally means all of the innovations, think Nostra Aetate, and other documents from the Council have not been settled by VC II and therefore are not official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church or any other rite in union with Rome. This from the mouth of Blessed Paul VI. Cardinal "Whirl" needs to slow down a bit.