Friday, March 27, 2015

Vatican Council in general is being interpreted with an irrationality.Catholics do not know that there is a choice.Eliminate the premise and the Council dramatically changes.

Vatican 11 has been interpreted in an heretical fashion. Unfortunately great orthodox minds have not risen to the challenge of teaching--in depth--the true Catholic interpretation of it. There is substantial evidence that masons have infiltrated the Church. They now have their man in at the top in Rome. There is nearly daily evidence to indicate this. Unless this truth is faced it won't be long before the true Church will be underground.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with an irrational premise and inference or without this irrationality.
In general it is being interpreted with an irrationality. This is how the media interpreted it after 1965 and still continues to do so.
Catholics do not know that there is a choice.
Eliminate the premise and the Council dramatically changes.


What do you mean? Give an example please.

Does Vatican Council II contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) or is it in agreement with this traditional interpetation ?
For the secular media Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.
Lumen Gentium 16, says Wikipedia, contradicts EENS.Since there can be persons saved in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water as suggested in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949) .So LG 16 is an exception to the Feeneyite, traditional interpretation of EENS.


For Lionel Andrades Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS.
Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict EENS.Since there cannot be known persons saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water, since these cases would be invisible for us and known only to God. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake, since we cannot see persons in Heaven.So LG 16 is not an exception to the Feeneyite, strict interpretation of EENS.

The secular media uses an irrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth".
They then make an irrational inference which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explcit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."
Their conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.
-Lionel Andrades


http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html



Catholics who use the irrational premise include the following.










 

No donations to organisations that are pro- abortion but on the issue of salvation, dogmas , Vatican Council II they would welcome donations to LifeSites, whose editor dissents

O.K it is an oversight, a common error in the Church but when is this issue going to be discussed by them ?

There is also confusion when Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference and so the Council emerges as a break with the past.Cardinal Raymond Burke and John Henry Weston use this irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Cardinal Raymond Burke has referred to confusion in the Church according to a report by John Henry Weston, Editor of LifeSites.
 
John Henry Weston does not write about the confusion promoted by Lifesites. Since if he removes the confusion he would be saying that Vatican Council II and the Catholic Church teaches ( in Vatican Council II) that there is no known salvation outside the Church.
Since there is no known salvation ( and cannot be any such case) outside the Church there are no explcit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So Vatican Council II does not and cannot contradict the centuries old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
This would have to be John Henry Weston's conclusion on Vatican Council II interpreted without assuming that there are known exceptions in the present times to all needing to be formal members of the Church.
This is not the politically accepted interpretation of the dogma. So John Henry Weston and Hilary White at Lifesites avoid this issue.
Then are expected in a few months to participate in a March for Life  in Rome along with Cardinal Raymond Burke.
They will be telling Catholics the Church teaches that abortion is wrong. They will talk on pro life issues and expect Catholics and non Catholics to support it.
Yet they will not be able to tell the non Catholics present at the March for Life that the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II affirms the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It is convenient for them to reject the Church's teaching on salvation with an irrational premise ( there are explicit exceptions to the dogma, people saved in Heaven without formal entry in the Church are seen and known on earth).It is prudent in  a worldly sense to reject a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.
They have quoted an English bishop telling Catholics not to donate to charities that are pro abortion and whose actions are contrary to the teachings of the Church.Yet they would expect donations to LifeSites whose Catholic editor supports an irrational ecclesiology( deceased now in Heaven are visible exceptions)  and so endorses Vatican Council II as a break with the past, similar to dissenters.
On Vatican Council II they are liberal while on abortion they are traditional.
On abortion they would not expect donations to be given to organisations that are pro- abortion but on the issue of salvation,the dogmas of the Church, Vatican Council II etc  they would welcome donations to LifeSites, whose editor dissents.
Cardinal Raymond Burke also holds the liberal position on this issue.
O.K it is an oversight, a common error in the Church, among good and well meaning people,  but when is this issue going to be discussed ?
-Lionel Andrades

 

March for Life 2015 : double standards http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015_03_05_archive.html

 
Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass



What makes a traditionalist or liberal ? It's the premise and EENS

 

Vatican Council II (premise-free) agrees with the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return and non Christians needing to convert for salvation

 
So if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 are not explicit for us in 2015 ( and they are not) then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism.
 
 
SSPX show the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/sspx-show-vatican-marchetti-error.html
 
 
When the laity are aware of the false premise, they will not fall for this ruse

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015_03_18_archive.html

How can everyone be wrong and only you be correct http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015_03_19_archive.html

The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015


Fr.John Hunwicke and Patrick Archbold expect the SSPX to also compromise the Faith with the irrational premise and conclusion

Fr.John Hunwicke and Patrick Archbold want the SSPX to come into the Church accepting an irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II just as they have done.
 
They will not interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational proposition and inference  since it would not be politically correct.It would be a threat to their work, their lifestyle.It would not be accepted by their superiors and could result in suspension.
In another case of making a virtue out of a necessty  the two bloggers encourage the SSPX to reject traditional  Catholic teaching , as they both have done with respect to Vatican Council II, with the use of an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents.
Neither are they pointing it out that some magisterial documents also use this irrationality(Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio )  to emerge as a break with Tradition.
 
Fr. Hunwicke has a post on his blog on the SSPX and Unity 1. Passages of this post were re posted  by Patrick Archbold on his blog.2
Fr. Hunwicke  did not post a comment of mine in which I asked him to announce that 'We Catholics do not know of any exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So there cannot be an exception, in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)'.
 What was so difficult about this one may ask ? Since this is common knowledge. We do not know any one on March 27, 2015 who will go to Heaven without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So there are no known exceptions to the traditional, strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
'We Catholics do not know of any exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued, So there cannot be an exception, in Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965)to EENS'.
Humanly, we cannot know of any exception to EENS in 2016-2017.So there still is no exception in Vatican Council II to EENS.
 
What was so complicated about all this for Fr.Hunwicke?
Yet he could not make this common place statement on his blog. He could not discuss it. Fr.Hunwicke works under the bishops in England who oversee the Anglican Ordinariate, where the Catholic Faith is compromised.If he makes this common place announcement  he would be saying that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in the Vatican Council II.This is not the official interpretation of the magisterium for the SSPX's entry into the Church with canonical status. The SSPX like the magisterium must say that Vatican Council II is a break with the past since it can only be interpreted with the irrational  premise and inference.
The issue with the SSPX is not simply Vatican Council II. The real issue is Vatican Council II interpreted with or without the irrational premise and inference.
So Fr.Hunwicke and Patrick Archbold  are both not going to comment on this issue.They both use the irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II and this is acceptable to their superiors.They expect the SSPX to also compromise the Faith, for the sake of personal security etc, and make the same doctrinal error, to receive canonical status in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1
March 25, 2015


The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015

 
 

Fr.Joseph Kramer and the FSSP priests in Rome agree with me : he has to say there are exceptions to the dogma, he has to use an irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II

There is no denial from Fr.Joseph Kramer FSSP,the Pastor ( as  he is described on their website) at the Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP),   church in Rome. He agrees with me on what they may  teach in his Catholic parish in Rome. ( Mobile: +39.348.93 53 936 Email: kramer@fssp.it )
He does not deny that at the parish-church Santissima dei Pelligrini  he has to say that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( when he does not know of any) or that Fr.Leonard Feeney was condemned for holding the rigorist interpretation of the dogma ( when the FSSP priest does not know of any exceptions to the dogma and no magisterial document before Fr.Feeney's time, claims there were known exceptions, and the excommunication was lifted without the priest having to recant).
Fr.Kramer does not deny that he cannot teach that there are no explicit exceptions to the dogma  referred to in Vatican Council II. He is unable to teach that Vatican Council is Feeneyite and pro-Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.
 
He does not deny that in religious education and catechesis, he teaches what is officially expected of him by the Vatican and the Vicariate. So if he does not teach ecclesiology ( understanding of Church)  with the irrational premise, he could be suspended etc. So to stay as Pastor and offer the Traditional Latin Mass, he chooses to teach what is permitted by  the Left. It is the same ecclesiology as that of the Novus Ordo Mass.
No denial here.
Since he has to promote an irrational ecclesiology and not the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church he has to present the laity in his 'traditional' parish with a particular reasoning.
So FSSP priests suggest the following irrational reasoning:
1.Someone in the past is a known exception today to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus on March 27, 2015.
2.Someone living will be an exception in future  to the strict interpretation of the dogma today (March 27, 2015) since he will be saved without faith and baptism.(This does not even make sense to anyone  so don't expect me to explain it)
3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth.As if we can see people in Heaven.(This is reality-check at the FSSP church)
So the pastor will not be able to teach :-
1) We personally do not know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, we cannot  see them, they are not physically visible to us in 2015.

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla, or Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation .
Fr.Joseph Kramer does not deny that an FSSP priest has to compromise the Catholic Faith to remain priests in good standing with the Vatican.
Risultati immagini per Photo of Balamand Declaration

Fr.Kramer does not deny that he cannot teach that Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 use an irrationality.They assume that there is known salvation outside the Church. These documents infer that there is salvation outside the Church as if these cases are personally known or some magisterial document before 1949 claimed they were known.
So instead of correcting the error of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in 1949 they have promoted it.Church teachings on mission, salvation, evangelisation etc have been diluted.

They have changed part of the Nicene Creed, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.
No denial here.
1) They (FSSP / Vatican) infer that there are non Catholics in Heaven saved without 'faith and baptism'.
2) These persons are known to us on earth.They are personally known to become explicit exceptions to the traditional, exclusivist ecclesiology.
3) Since they are personally known, there are living exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.
This is the 'new ecclesiology' that the FSSP pastor goes along with.
Here is the pattern again:
1.False, irrational premise/proposition.
2.Irrational, non traditional conclusion.
3.Ecclesiology has changed. A new theology is presented based on the false premise/proposition.
The irrational premise on which the new ecclesiology is settled is : in the present times ( 2015) non Catholics are known who are in Heaven without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
So the irrational inference which makes up the new ecclesiology is : there is salvation outside the Church.
Conclusion: the dogma on salvation and Tradition in general are contradicted.
This is all taught by the FSSP priests since it is politically correct and the magisterium approves it.
So when an FSSP priest mentions St.Emerentiana being an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma , he does want to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II ( premise-free) in public. Fr.Kramer agrees here.
When he refers to Fr.Leonard Feeney it is an excuse for hiding the Truth which he cannot proclaim, since he is not permitted to do so, officially.
-Lionel Andrades


Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) has changed Church teachings on family catechesis, religious education, salvation, mortal sin, ecclesiology...


The FSSP priests are not teaching the truths of the Catholic Faith for political reasons. They are teaching a lie.So what do we do ? We do not discuss it since they are priests?  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-fssp-priests-are-not-teaching-truth.html 

 
So when you hear an FSSP/SSPX priest talk about St.Emerentiana remember it is a lot of nonsense. He does want to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II ( premise-free) in public http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/so-when-you-hear-fsspsspx-priest-talk.html
 
 
The FSSP priests are not teaching the truths of the Catholic Faith for political reasons. They are teaching a lie.So what do we do ? We do not discuss it since they are priests?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-fssp-priests-are-not-teaching-truth.html
 
 
No denial from FSSP http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/no-denial-from-fssp.html
 
 
FSSP priests in Rome not allowed to affirm Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla salus without three irrational points: no denial from religious community
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/fssp-priests-in-rome-not-allowed-to.html

_________________________________________