Sunday, March 11, 2018

Repost : Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise : Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao, James Bogle, Joseph Shaw agree?

OCTOBER 11, 2014


Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise : Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao, James Bogle, Joseph Shaw agree?

IMG_0194Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise which makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition.They interpreted Vatican Council II assuming LG 16,LG 8 etc were visible exceptions in the present times to all needing to enter the Catholic Church.
Traditionalists seem to agree with me. None of them have denied what I have written.
Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops, Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand, accepted this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 believing that the 'magisterium' could not be wrong. The Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII wrongly infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit and so are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words, these cases are visible and known to us, for them to be exceptions was the wrong inference.With this irrationality, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 opposed the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church's understanding of other religions and Christian communities.
Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao and James Bogle recently  spoke at a conference in England and ignored the fact that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without an irrational premise. It can be interpreted with Feeneyism (no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) or with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, e.g the baptism of desire).The premise used decides if Vatican Council II can be interpreted as a break with the dogma and Tradition or in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Vatican Council could be a break with the traditional teachings on other religions and Christian communities or be  traditional on this issue.
They were not aware of the irrational premise.
Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao and James Bogle  have not denied that the leaders of the traditionalist movement, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, were not aware that it was the irrational premise which made Vatican Council II a break with Tradition.
Without the false premise Vatican Council II(Ad Gentes 7) is in agreement with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and LG 16,LG 8,NA 2 etc are not explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

October 8, 2014

Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao and James Bogle again spoke at a conference and did not mention that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without an irrational premise

Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise which makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition 


MARCH 5, 2018

Image result for Press Conference on Thursday Placuit Deo Photo
Card.Ladaria s.j, must ask the German Bishops Conference to interpret Vatican Council II with the for and neutral to EENS method..Their present for and against EENS method is irrational, non traditional,heretical and schismatic
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/cardladaria-sj-must-ask-german-bishops.html


MARCH 11, 2018


When you meet Cardinal Luiz Ladaria tell him that it is being said that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and yours is the irrational one (Graphics) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/when-you-meet-cardinal-luiz-ladaria.html


 MARCH 11, 2018



Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia do not read Vatican Council II with the for and neutral to EENS method.They use the for and against EENS method : CDF's Placuit Deo emerges vague and confusing

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/cardinal-ladaria-and-archbishop.html


Repost : Sedevacantists will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to physically visible or invisible people in 2017 :LG 16 invisible indicates that they were wrong on Vatican Council II all these years

JULY 30, 2017


Sedevacantists will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to physically visible or invisible people in 2017 :LG 16 invisible indicates that they were wrong on Vatican Council II all these years


Image result for Photos difficult question for them?
A German Catholic traditionalist Sanctius Bonifactius possibly a sedevacantist has posted an article on the Baptism of Desire (BOD) assuming that the BOD refers to visible and known people saved outside the Church.He then assumes that these 'known' cases  are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS). 
When it is pointed out to him that there are no known cases of the  BOD in our reality and so they  never ever were an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS,he refuses to accept it.Emotionally he cannot handle it.
Image result for Photos difficult question for them?
I tell him  via  the Internet that we both do not know of any baptism of desire case in 2017.So how can someone who does not exist be an exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation?
He refuses to admit this. BOD is not an exception to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Then I asked him how would he interpret Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance), does it refer to a visible or invisible person in our reality.He will not answer.He just refuses to answer such a simple question.
Image result for Eric GajewskiDavid Dees Art (CLICK THE PIC!)NEW TRADCATKNIGHT/ORDER OF THE EAGLE SHIRTS!
It was the same with the sedevacantist Eric Gajewski( Trad Cat Knight). I asked him if LG 16 refers to a visible or invisible case.LG 16 can be interpreted in two ways. With two different premises you get two different conclusions.
He refused to answer the question.
Why?
Can we see people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire' I ask them. They will not answer. 
It is as if their whole house will come down.It is as if I am saying something objectionable for them.
They critiize me for asking this question and suggest that this is a personal view of mine. I have quoted so many responsible people, good Catholics who say that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refers to invisible cases. This is something obvious. This is common sense.It is obvious we cannot see people saved in Heaven in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own.We cannot see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is not a personal theory of mine.
The German traditionalists will not even post my comments along with his articles on Gloria TV on this subject.
Image result for Photos Donald  SanbornImage result for Photos Bishop Pivarunas CMRI
It is now a few years since  the sedevacantist communities of Bishops Pirvanus and Sanborn will not answer if BOD refers to physically visible cases or physically invisible cases in 2017.There will be two intepretations  of Vatican Council II, if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,NA 2 etc refers to either concrete or 
theoretical cases.They both had chosen the wrong premise.

Image result for Photos difficult question for them?
Look at their websites. It is full of reports on Vatican Council II suggesting that invisible cases are really visible and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and they are a rupture with Tradition in particular the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. Their entire understanding of Vatican Council II is based on LG 16 being visible.It is all there on their websites. 
So how can they make a turn around now. They simply ignore me. They will not discuss the subject.Bonifactius and Gajiewski act as if this is a personal opinion or theory of mine.
Image result for Photos difficult question for them?
 Sanctius Bonifatius and Eric Gajiewski know in their heart what is the honest and rational conclusion.They do not want to face it as sedevacantists and traditionalists.They have been running down Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo Mass and now it is being discovered that they were using a false theology to interpret the Council all these years.It also means there is no rationale any more to justify sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II.
 Vatican Council II with invisible-for-us LG 16 is traditional and does  not contradict the dogma EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century.So the Council is not a  break with Tradition.It never was.
They can no more justify their  sedevacantism and neither can  the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) reject the Council based on LG 16 being visible.
Image result for Photos Bishop Bernard FellayImage result for Photos  of Pier Paolo Petrucci
There are articles on line in which Bishop Bernard Fellay and Fr.Pier Paolo Petrucci, the Superior of the SSPX in Italy have interpreted Vatican Council II with UR 3, LG 16 etc referring to visible cases. So they concluded that the Council was a rupture with Tradition.They were misled by the Letter  of the Holy Office 1949 which made this objective mistake.
So Gajiewski and  Bonifactius will not answer if LG 16 refers to a visible or invisible case since  all along they assumed LG 16 referred to a visible case and then postulated that it was a known case of salvation outside the Church.Since Vatican Council II for them was saying that there was salvation outside the Church it was a clash with the dogma EENS.Since EENS was rejected the old ecclesiology of the Church was also rejected. So then the Syllabus of Errors was rejected on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and conversion. It all began with visible for us LG 16.
The present magisterium also has been interpreting LG 16  as referring to visible cases. So this confirmed it for the sedevacantists that Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition.None of them have appealed to the two popes to interpret LG 16  etc as an invisible case and then there would be no visible exceptions mentioned in the Council to the dogma EENS.
Similarly no one in March 2016 asked Pope Benedict to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 being invisible and then the Council will not be ' a development' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
The sedevacantists are so atttached to their interpretation of  the Council with LG 16 being visible that they will not respond to a simple question which would not be difficult for even a school boy.
Trad Cat Kinght would not only not answer these simple questions he would not allow me to comment on his blog.Bonifactius is deleting posts.Since  he does not want to have a discussion  in public. To respond to his posts I have to write reports like this one.-Lionel Andrades

_________________________________




 MARCH 9, 2018

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j made a mistake on March 1,2018 at the Press Conference on Placuito Deo and there is no denial from the Vatican : his error is objective and obvious.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-made-mistake.html

MARCH 11, 2018


When you meet Cardinal Luiz Ladaria tell him that it is being said that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and yours is the irrational one (Graphics) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/when-you-meet-cardinal-luiz-ladaria.html


 MARCH 11, 2018



Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia do not read Vatican Council II with the for and neutral to EENS method.They use the for and against EENS method : CDF's Placuit Deo emerges vague and confusing

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/cardinal-ladaria-and-archbishop.html












Repost : The difference between the Rector of the Allen Hall,London,Catholic seminary and me : LG 16 refers to hypothetical and invisible cases for me but not for him

 FEBRUARY 8, 2018

The difference between the Rector of the Allen Hall,London,Catholic seminary and me : LG 16 refers to hypothetical and invisible cases for me but not for him

Fr Roger Taylor
If I met the Rector of the Allen Hall Catholic seminary London in the Archdiocese of Westminister,I would tell him that I affirm Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7,Vatican Council II) while for me Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance/good conscience) refer to hypothetical and physically invisible cases in 2018.
So LG 16, like LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

ALLEN HALL IS IRRATIONAL
Whereas he and the Staff at Allen Hall Seminary,affirms AG 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and all need to enter the Church as through a door- but LG 16 refers to visible and known people saved outside the Church.So all do not need to enter the Church for salvation.
This is the difference between him and me.We both affirm Ad Gentes 7 but for him LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to visible and known people saved outside the Church, while for me they are hypothetical and theoretical cases, irrelevant  to AG 7 and the dogma EENS.
So there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church for me, the old ecclesiology is still there for me.While for him there is a new ecclesiology with invisible for us cases of LG 16 etc being visible examples of salvation outside the church. So there are exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Church for him.
The religious formation at Allen Hall, is irrational, non traditional and a heretical rupture with EENS, the Nicene Creed and the Syllabus of Errors.This is the difference between and this Vatican approved seminary.
Image result for Photo Kiko Arguello and Pope FrancisImage result for Photo Kiko Arguello and Pope Francis
This is the liberalism and modernism approved by Pope Benedict, which Allen Hall exports to theRedemptoris Mater seminaries world wide of the Neo Cathechumenal Way of Kiko Arguello.


Now if Kiko Arguello says Lionel Andrades is correct and Allen Hall is wrong what happens to Catholic theologyin the U.K?
They would continue to teach the lies,  suppose.
-Lionel Andrades


Allen Hall is the seminary for the Diocese of Westminster. The seminary community is diverse and benefits from seminarians and novices from a range of dioceses and religious communities.
1
Diocese of Westminster Most seminarians for the Diocese of Westminster undergo formation at Allen Hall, and Westminster students form the largest single group in the seminary community.
2
Redemptoris Mater House of Formation Since 1991, Allen Hall has been welcoming vocations fostered in the Neocatechumenal Way to prepare them for priesthood within the Diocese of Westminster. These seminarians live for some of their time in the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation in north London while they study at Allen Hall Seminary.

Find out more here.

Image result for Photo Kiko Arguello and Pope Francis
3
Other Dioceses There are also seminarians from other dioceses in England and Wales, and abroad.

Information for Vocations Directors can be found here.

4
Religious Communities The diversity of Allen Hall is enhanced by seminarians and novices studying for a range of different religious orders and communities.

Information for Religious Superiors and Novice Masters can be found here.

http://allenhall.org.uk/about/











 FEBRUARY 6, 2018


Cushingism is the only theology used by the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement and the Neo Catechumenal Way : this is not the work of the Holy Spirit.



http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/cushingism-is-only-theology-used-by.html
















____________________________________