Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the old ecclesiology and the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

From the blog Southern Orders with comments

DID VATICAN II CHANGED THE DOCTRINE OF ECCLESIOLOGY? OF COURSE NOT BUT IT DID ADJUST ITS PRACTICE by 


Some with an ideological agenda believe that Vatican II 
changed the doctrine of the  nature  of the  Church and
 used new language to describe the Church unheard

 of prior to Vatican II. FALSE!

Lionel:

The Council can be interpreted in agreement with 
the strict interpretation  of the dogma extra 
ecclesiam nulla salus.This would mean interpreting
 LG  16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to hypothetical 
and not objectively known cases.Then Vatican 
Council II would have no change in ecclesiology.
______________________

While I prefer the Church to be described as the "Mystical Body 
of Christ" one could have used prior to Vatican II the description
 of the Church as the "People of God" or the "Pilgrim Church" 
traversing time and space for her true home, heaven.  Did 
Vatican II indicate who those are who are NOT the People of God?
Lionel: Vatican Council II has said all need faith
 and baptism for  salvation(AG 7, LG 14). So
 those people who do not have faith 
and baptism in the Catholic Church are on
 the way to Hell.
This was also the old ecclesiology.Vatican 
Council II also says  the Church is the 
new people of God(NA 4). So Jews are no
 more the Chosen People.
Vatican Council II here (AG 7, LG 14, NA 4) 
is saying outside the Church there is no
 salvation.It is in agreement with the
 thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 
saluswhich tells us specifically who are
 on the way to the fires of Hell if they do
 enter the Mystical Body of Christ.This is 
the old ecclesiology of the Church too.
It is also post Vatican Council II teaching.
 I do not know if this is the  ecclesiology
 at the blog Southern Orders.
___________________________
 Has the Church never used the term 
pilgrimage as a sign of traveling, 
walking, making pilgrimages to shrines
holy doors, lands, as ultimately 
one's pilgrimage to heaven?
Lionel: Only those people are making
 a pilgrimage to Heaven who 
are formal members of the Catholic
 Church with faith and baptism
 and who die without mortal sin on 
their soul.In Heaven there are
 only Catholics according to Vatican 
Council II.(AG 7,LG 14)
___________________________

Now, in the pastoral theology of the Council, 
the ecclesiology of the Church as a 
hierarchical institution that is  comprised 
of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious 
and laity, gave voice to concretely 
enlist the aid of the laity in the life of the
 Church.

But here is the rub, so many with an ideology
 of a somehow changed doctrine or new 
dogma (and of course Vatican II declared no
 new doctrines let alone dogmas, believe that
 specifically speaking of the  role of the laity in
 the Church was somehow revolutionary. 
Perhaps from a pastoral point of view, yes, but 
certainly there is  no new dogma or doctrine in a
 shift of pastoral sensitivities to describe how the
 laity is an integral part of the Church.
Lionel: When Lumen Gentium 14 suggests 
only those who know  ( and who are not in 
invincible ignorance) need to enter the Church
 to avoid Hell, it is a new doctrine. It has
 emerged from the objective error in the Letter
 of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter inferred 
that we know persons saved in invincible
 ignorance or the baptism of desire, who
were in Heaven without the baptism of 
water.
The Letter assumed we 
know explicit cases of people saved in 
invincible ignorance and also without the 
baptism of water.So the Letter wrongly 
assumed  that these cases being visible and
 known were exceptions to the traditional
 interpretation of EENS. This was factually
 incorrect.
However LG 14 can still be interpreted 
as referring to a hypothetical case. So it
 does not contradict the strict interpretation
 of EENS and the old ecclesiology.
_____________________________

First and foremost the role of the laity is not 
described by Vatican II as churchy stuff, although
 this isn't excluded of course. First and foremost 
the laity's role is at home as they form the 
"domestic Church" and in the home father 
act in the person of Christ to pastor his wife 
and children. Husbands and wives have a
 co-equal responsibility to make the home 
a place of faith, worship, catechesis and 
service, in other words, faith and good 
works put into practice.

The laity have a role in the public square 
to represent the institutional Church and 
her teachings as a priest or religious might
 do and with the same authority when they
 actually represent the Church and her
 teachings and pastoral priorities.
Lionel: Do the laity have to interpret Vatican
 Council II with Feeneyism or Cushingism?
 With Cushingism, with the use of the
irrational premise, ecclesiology changes.
________________________________
 I would say that it is here that so many public 
Catholics in politics have failed. But also
 there is a failure on the parochial level 
when rank and file Catholic laity do not 
defend the Catholic Faith and her 
institutions, but rather denigrate, 
carp and otherwise undermine Holy
 Mother Church.
Lionel: Rank and file Catholics have to
 defend Vatican Council II interpreted 
with Feeneyism ( there are no known
 exceptions past or present to the strict
 interpretation of the dogma EENS) ? 
Or do they have to defend Vatican 
Council II interpreted with Cushingism
( there are known exceptions to the 
dogma EENS. They include the 
baptism of desire )?.
The USCCB interprets Vatican 
Council II with Cushingism. This is a
rupture  with the Catholic Faith of 
pre-Council of Trent- times.This is the 
hermeneutic of rupture.It creates a new
 ecclesiology based on an irrationality.
___________________

On the institutional level, be it the parish 
and its institutions, the diocese and its institutions
 or Rome and its institutions, the laity have 
a role. What would a modern Catholic parish
 do without the laity today?
Lionel: The modern Catholic parish expects
 the laity to interpret Vatican Council II 
with a new ecclesiology, with the new
 theology, based on irrational Cushingism.
_________________________

In my parish laity have authority in their
 given paid roles although I set the agenda 
with them and supervise their work. 
Lionel: You also interpret Vatican Council II 
with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. 
So this creates a new doctrine and a
 new ecclesiology.
__________________________
Thus most parishes have lay men or women 
as principals, teachers, catechists, DRE's Music
 Directors, pastoral assistants, youth directors 
and on and on. And most parishes have women 
in these roles. Men are a minority. On the 
administrative level there are administrative
 assistants, secretaries, bookkeepers, and
 a whole host of other paid supports, most women.

In the liturgy prior to Vatican II the laity, men 
and women served in choirs and as cantors.
 They were ushers and commentators. 
They were altar boys and adult servers.

Today there is only a minor change to what
 Pre-Vatican II allowed.
Lionel: There is a change in the Catholic Faith at the
 level of the Nicene Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam 
nulla salus and Vatican Council II. The change in
 doctrine is reflected in the Catechism of the
 Catholic Church. It also depends on which 
 theology used to interpret magisterial documents.
 Do we use the innovation with Cushingism or do 
with use Feeneyism as a theology?
____________________________
 Men and women, boys and girls can serve
 the altar as servers, readers and adults 
a extraordinary ministers  of Holy Communion 
but only when there is a  legitimate need, 
not contrived uses for these.

The problem with post Vatican II liturgical
 participation in the institutional way is that
 it creates an elite clericalized group of laity 
whose roles as readers, cantors, choir members
 and EMHCs is seen as more important than
 what the majority of the laity do at their pews.
 To make things worse, the move of choirs and 
cantors to the sanctuary or in a visible position
 elevates these laity over those in the regular 
pews, a new form of authentic clericalism.

Yes, Vatican II's documents describe the role 
or the laity in a powerful way, first for what their 
role is in the world outside the churchiness of the
 parish facilities and secondly  where their expertise
 can be used on instituional level. Liturgically the laity 
are called to a more informed participation in the
 liturgies of the Church based upon actual participation 
of mind and heart, body and soul. 

But is this a new ecclesiology? 
Lionel: No. However they all probably interpret
 Vatican Council II with Cushingism. This can
 be checked out by asking them two simple
questions.
__________________________

No and anyone who
 tells you that it is, is simply bloviating.
Lionel: I assume you do not affirm the strict
 interpretation of the dogma EENS.I also
 assume you interpret Vatican Council II
 (LG 16) as referring to an exception to 
the dogma EENS. This would mean that 
 in your case ecclesiology has changed.There is the
 hermeneutic of rupture with the past. A rupture
with Tradition, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus
of Errors etc.There would be a rupture
with the traditional ecclesiology on
ecumenism and non Christian
religions and salvation.
________________________________

Issues of centralization and decentralization have 
always been a tension in the Church. The pastoral
 position of subsidiarity is a good thing that what can
 be accomplished on a lower level should be but 
always in union with one's bishop and the Bishop 
of Rome. Canon Law assists in this.

Subsidiarity based upon doing one's own thing 
independent of the bishop or the Bishop of Rome
 is called schism. It is never a good thing.
Lionel: The USCCB bishops are interpreting 
magisterial documents with an irrational premise
 and so there is a new ecclesiology.This is 
heresy.It is magisterial heresy.
 It is a rejection of the traditional interpretation
 of  the Nicene Creed and the  thrice defined
dogma EENS. It is  interpreting Vatican Council
 II with  an irrationality as a break with the
 Nicene Creed and EENS, by using an irrational
inference.This is a new ecclesiology. It is heresy. It is
 a break with the magisterium of the past
 and those who oppose it may wrongly be
considered schismatic.
__________________________

Terms such as "empowering the laity" or taking 
away power from the ordained is not what 
Vatican II taught about ecclesiology.
Lionel: Vatican Council II did not change
 the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma
EENS unless there is a mix up between
what is explicit and implicit, objective
 and subjective, visible and invisible.
_____________________________
The laity are advisors to the hierarchy and to parish priests.
 They assist but they don't control.
Lionel: A layman in the diocese of Savannah,USA
 cannot officially, in public, interpret Vatican Council
 II with the theology  of Feneeyism since the
 bishop would  not permit it.So
 a layman has to use an irrational inference to
interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the
 old ecclesiology. This is acceptable to the political
Left, the USCCB and the clergy in Savannah.
______________________________


But the greatest  tension in the Church has been
centered on the  laity wanting to be clericalized for
clerical power, thus the push for women to be
 ordained, and the  laity to run parishes and
a new trusteeism that sees the laity trying
 to control the institutions of 
the Church rather than the clergy.

We had this perverted understanding of 
ecclesiology develop in two small parish
 in south Georgia and it got so bad that 
the bishop had to closed the parishes 
until those who were creating the problems
 understood just where the power and
 authority rests in the Catholic Church.
Lionel: Even though the power and authority
 to interpret Vatican Council II with a LIE
exists with the bishop and priests the laity
is free to affirm the old ecclesiology and
interpret Vatican Council II without an
 irrational inference.So there is no
change in ecclesiology, in this sense,
 in post and pre-Vatican Council II times.
However I do not expect this no change
 in ecclesiology to be accepted
by Fr. Alan J. McDonald or his bishop.
-Lionel Andrades



 

Tancred (The Eponymous Flower) does not know the answer ?

l'immagine del profilo di The Eponymous Flower
I have been corresponding in the Comments Section ,with Tancred on his blog  The Eponymous Flower .He will not answer simple questions.
May be he has contacted Brother Andre Marie MICM and John Vennari and they too do not want to answer two questions.
Then I  mentioned that Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin and John Martignoni have answered those two questions and would he agree with them. There is no answer from Tancred or even Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, N.H, USA.
What's Tancred afraid of? His reputation? His association with the St. Benedict Centre ?. He does not write under his real name, so what's he afraid of?
Here are the comments:
  1. Lionel:
  2. Tancred,
    Would you agree with Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson
    Fr.S.Visintin osb and John Martignoni?
    Would you say there are no physically known cases of persons now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water?
    You cannot see in the flesh, people who are now in Heaven and are allegedly saved without the baptism of water?
    ________________

    Similarly this year you do not know of any one saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church?
    You cannot see them in Heaven or meet them on earth?
    ______________________________

    You do not pèrsonally know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water during your life time?

    You also do not know of any one who will be saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water?

    _______________________________

    So for you Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) would refer to an invisble case ?
    ________________________

    Similarly there was no one in 1949 Boston who could have personally known of someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water?

    No one could have seen or met someone who was a living exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ?


    So does LG 16 refer to an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS for you?
    -Lionel


    Replies


    1. I believe exactly what Br. Andre teaches.
    2. Lionel: 
    3. These are rational questions.

      Would you say there are no physically known cases of persons now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water?
      You cannot see in the flesh, people who are now in Heaven and are allegedly saved without the baptism of water?

      Even a young man or a non Catholic can answer these questions.
      Why are you, Brother Andre Marie MICM and the sedevacantists not responding ?

      ____________________________

      Similarly this year you do not know of any one saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church?
      You cannot see them in Heaven or meet them on earth?

      Are these difficult questions?

      Surely even Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St.Benedict Center Richmond, N.H,USA believes you Tancred, cannot physically see people in Heaven and neither can other human beings in general ?
      -Lionel
      ______________________________
    4. Lionel:
    5. You may say that BOD is not explicit for you.But is there are exceptions to EENS it means you know of an explicit case, an explicit exception.For the magisterium there are exceptions.So the baptism of desire is explicit for the Vatican and the traditionalists.
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-may-say-that-bod-is-not-explicit.html


      Hypothetical cases are explicit for Brother Andre Marie MICM and so LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS for the St. Benedict Centers and the SSPX? And also for you?
      -Lionel
    6. http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/03/help-saint-benedict-center-find-priest.html
    7. ___________________________

Tancred,
If you say that LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and in particular with EENS, then you have made the distinction. You have set things up. And this is really the position on Vatican Council II for the SBC and the SSPX groups.

If LG 16 is a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) then it means LG 16 is referring to an objective case, for it to be an exception.
It means LG 16 is not a reference to a hypothetical case, but a seen in the flesh case. So the distinction has been made by you.And I have to keep responding to this irrationality.
-Lionel


http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/03/catholic-cardinal-and-masonic-lodge.html



Lionel:

It's not problematic in this case.Since we now know hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So we re-read Vatican Council II without the old conditioning.
The Councils comes out traditional and Feeneyite.

Tancred and the SBC ( Richmond N.H and Still River) are interpreting Vatican Council as the Masons would want them to do so.


Eleonore Villarrubia teaches Catholic school children to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and as a break with the dogma EENS ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/eleonore-villarrubia-teaches-catholic.html

They are not announcing that LG 16 for example refers to an invisible and not a visible case.This is something but obvious but yet they will not comment on it.Tancred possibly has to ask Brother Andre Marie's permission before commenting on this.

This is something simple but they are avoiding it it.
Here are two questions which they will not answer.This maintains the problem.

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?


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 salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
________________________

The same problem is there with the FSSP and the SSPX.

No denial from FSSP

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/no-denial-from-fssp.html
-Lionel Andrades

The St. Benedict Centers are saying there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS,outside the Church there is known salvation, so they reject Vatican Council II for suggesting this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-st-benedict-centers-are-saying.html


Lay Catholics,including bloggers still do not realize that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the blue or red column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/lay-catholicsincluding-bloggers-still.html#links



IHM schools teaching error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/ihm-schools-teaching-error.html

Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities like Peter Vere interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/frleonard-feeneys-communities-like.html

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious formation :no comment since last December

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html



The Church is necessary for salvation. We agree here. But LG 16 is an exception to EENS for the MICM?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/the-church-is-necessary-for-salvation.html
MICM does not want to change its official position on Vatican Council II : need to break away from Hildebrand, Davis,SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/micm-does-not-want-to-change-its.html

Michael Voris, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are unaware that nothing in Vatican Council II can be an exception to EENS


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/michael-voris-slaves-of-immaculate.html

Cardinal Robert Sarah and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary 



Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary liberalism: same as Cardinal Walter Kaspar

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html




Bro.Thomas Augustine MICM, Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX, Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer SSPX-SO and sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond assume that the baptism of desire is relevant to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus


St.Benedict Centers USA keep affirming Vatican Council II but not like the SSPX or the liberal bishops

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/stbenedict-centers-usa-keep-affirming.html

St.Benedict Centers - misleading
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/stbenedict-centers-misleading.html

It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is not just my opinion

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/it-is-fact-of-life-that-we-cannot-see_1.html



The St. Benedict Centers are saying there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS,outside the Church there is known salvation, so they reject Vatican Council II for suggesting this.

March 14, 2016


Father Michael Müller: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/03/father-michael-muller.html
From the blog The Eponymous Flower with comments

Edit: well worth the read!  The more things change... Other Müllers would do well to copy the life of this evangelical giant.
Lionel:Like Fr.Michael Muller and Fr. Leonard Feeney I hold the traditionalist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). There is no salvation outside the Church for me.Since physically there cannot be any known salvation outside the Church, past or present.There are no objective exceptions in 2016 to the interpretation of EENS according to these two priests.

Can Tancred(The Eponymous Flower)  and Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior, at the St.Benedict Center, Richmond, N.H, USA, also state that there are physically no visible and known exceptions to the dogma EENS? Difficult?
____________________________

CFN Editor’s Note: Father Michael Müller was one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th Century. He ranks as one of the greatest defenders of the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” in modern times.
 Father Müller always submitted his works to two Redemptorist theologians and to his religious superiors before publication, thus we are sure of the doctrinal soundness of his teachings. This article, first published in 1875, is one of the finest treatments of the doctrinal truth that Our Lord founded one true Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Father Muller’s firm writings are desperately needed in our time when this doctrine is denied by those who are the most influential members of our Holy Church. We publish Father Müller’s excellent little Catechism as an antidote to the prevalent religious indifferentism — an indifferentism that is the direct result of what Blessed Pius IX denounced as “Liberal Catholicism”.


1. Do all admit that the Catholic Church is the first and the oldest Church, and, consequently the Church established by Jesus Christ?

That the Catholic Church is the first and oldest and consequently the Church established by Jesus Christ, is and must be admitted by all, because it is a fact clearly proven by Scripture and by history.

Lionel:
Agreed.The Catholic Church has also always affirmed the  'strict' interpretation of the dogma EENS and did not consider being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance as referring to explicit cases, visible in the flesh.This error was clearly made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Similarly priests and lay supporters of the SSPX make the same error as the 1949 Letter.They assume there are known cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. They also assume that these known cases exclude the baptism of water.
This is irrational.Since there cannot be any physically seen or known case of someone saved without the baptism of water.We cannot see them in Heaven if they existed nor can we predict that any person alive will be saved without the baptism of water.So the baptism of desire etc were never any issue with respect to the dogma EENS.This error is also made by John Vennari from whose blog this report is taken.
The irrationality in thinking ( visible persons saved without the baptism of water) is also used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. LG 16 ,LG 8, UR 3 are considered  explicit and then it is postulated that these objective cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS according  to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Fr.Michael Muller.
Tancred, on this blog, and the St. Benedict Centers interpret Vatican Council II also as a break with EENS. In other words LG 16 etc refer to visible instead of invisible cases.
For me LG 16 etc is a reference  to invisible cases.So Vatican Council II does not contradict the interpretation of EENS according to Tradition, according to Father Muller and Father Feeney.
Yet Tancred and Bro.Andre Marie and Bro. Thomas Augustine MICM, Priors at the St.Benedict Centers, in the Diocese of Manchester and Worcester,USA, will not say that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to invisible cases and so they do not contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
This point is not being dealt by them or Tancred. I have asked them two simple questions.They refuse to answer them.



TWO QUESTIONS 

1) Do we personally know any case of a dead person, now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, without the baptism of water,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?


2) Since we do not know any such  case, in real life, they are not physically visible for us,  there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation?

______________________

2. 
Who bear witness to this fact?

The Jews and the Gentiles bear witness to it, and even Protestants themselves acknowledge it, because, if asked why they call themselves Protestants, they answer: “Because we protest against the Catholic Church.”

Lionel:
However the Jews and Gentiles today can also bear witness to the fact that the St.Benedict Centers consider LG 16 an exceptions to the dogma EENS and so they reject Vatican Council II. In other words the St. Benedict Centers are saying there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.They are  saying that outside the Church there is known salvation and so they reject Vatican Council II for suggesting this.
They are saying a Protestant can be saved in his religion 'with elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) . These cases are not hypothetical for the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney. They are objective. So a Jew can be saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or with a good conscience (LG 16).Otherwise why would they reject Vatican Council II? Why do they not say Vatican Council II is Feneeyite? They reject the Council since they assume there is known salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II.

______________________________________

3. What follows from this answer?

That the Catholic Church is older than Protestantism; otherwise they could not have protested against her.

Lionel:
So what ? The doctrine has been changed with the visible-dead theory, the dead man walking and visible new theology.This has been accepted by the traditionalists.
_____________________________________

4. If we go still further back and ask the Greek Church how they came into existence, what will be their answer?

The Greek Church must answer: “We began by separating from the Catholic Church in the 9th Century.”

Lionel:
The present magisterium has also separated itself from the Catholic Church of the ninth Century. They have done this by assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times.With this error they interpret Vatican Council II and so does the SBC and the SSPX.
-Lionel Andrades