Sunday, August 5, 2018

Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5 must have articles/media saying the present two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are in heresy for accepting the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and they need to correct the mistake

To harmonize theology on salvation and create unity on doctrine before and after Vatican Council II , Whispers of Restoration has to have articles/media saying the present two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are in heresy for accepting the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and they need to correct the mistake.
LOHO says not everyone need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.It considers invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church.This false reasoning is now ecclesiastical.It is official for the Vatican.
So Whispers of Restoration and I Peter 5  have to agree on this point or at least discuss it.
Then they must consider what Cardinal Raymond Burke said at the recent Voice of the Family conference in Rome. He said the Catholic Church is the one and true Church of Christ. So he was saying that he accepts Lumen  Gentium 8 ( subsists it) and Vatican Council II.But he also said that other religions are false religions.
It would only be possible to say this in harmony with Vatican Council II, if was referring to Vatican Council II, Feeneyite, the Council interpreted without the false premise, in which Lumen Gentium 8 was referring to hypothetical cases only.
So Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter 5 must consider Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors( other religions and salvation).Vatican Council II is in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church, in which there can only be an ecumenism of return.
This is Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).
Of course, Vatican Council II( Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition and must continue to be rejected.-Lionel Andrades

There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism.Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5

Whispers of Restoration should have an article on Vatican Council II( Feeneyite). I have said it a few times. There is no  comment from them.They are another traditionalist Cushingite website.They sell books written by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei who base their understanding of Vatican Council II and EENS upon the  upon the heresy in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).There is no comment coming from them or from others from the Lefbrivist school of traditionalists.A few years have pased and they have no opinion on this issue.
Can the baptism of desire have two interpretations? No answer.
Can there be two interpretations of Vatican Council II? No answer.


ONE WAY ONLY
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has been teaching heresy when it says every one does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church, for salvation.Since the Letter reasons  wrongly that invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are objective and practical exceptions to the de fide teaching, on all needing to be a member of the Church for salvation( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).How can invisible cases of non Catholics be an an exception to traditional EENS according to the old catechisms? Yet this is how Ferrara and Mattei reason.So they have nothing to say. This is how they reasoned for 50 years.
They are not allowed to think in any other way.

1PETER5 SERVES ONLY CUSHINGISM
It's the same story on the website 1Peter5 and traditionalist bloggers.The only food they serve at their tables is Cushingite.No choice.They interpret all magisterial documents in only one way.
Someone said ,"This is what the Church teaches ".But the Church also supports Vatican Council II (Cushingite) so why do they reject it?
If they feel obliged to follow Pius XII they why not also John XXIII and Paul VI ?
The interpretation of Vatican Council II according to the Left and the present two popes is heretical.It is the same with EENS.
The website Whispers of Restoration presents itself as being traditionalist but they support the official and liberal heresy on salvation. If they avoid the LOHO mistake it's a new Vatican Council II.It would not be the traditionalism of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops who supported Cardinal Richard Cushing and Pope Pius XII.
The theology of the websites Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5 is based on LOHO.It is irrational.They can allegedly see people in Heaven and on earth saved without the baptism of water.This is also the interpretation of the Masons.The LOHO mistake is used to create a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
We have to reject the second part of the LOHO, which is irrational and non traditional,and then we can have a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Today's 'traditionalists' are not really traditional especially the Lefebvrist school.Since they are in a rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Church which was Feeneyite and is expressed in the traditional Catechisms available on the website Whispers of Restoration.
They are in a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology since BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS for them.

FR.CEKADA POLITICALLY CORRECT
I think of Fr. Anthony Cekada who now knows that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in the present times and there were none in the past.But he keeps repeating his old line on 'Feeneyism',since it is politically correct.He does not have it in him to apologize and correct himself and others on this issue.
If he announces that he has started to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism, in which hypothetical cases are just hypothetical and not objective exceptions to EENS,  the Left may not allow him to teach.It is the same with Bishop Donald Sanborn who has politically correct articles on Feeneyism(according to the Left) on line.So their sedevacantist seminary and that of the 'Novus Ordo' seminaries in Florida,which they criticize  have the same Cushingite approach to Vatican Council II etc.There is no difference in theology, new doctrines and worldly prudence among both groups there.So they are given the mandatum to teach from the bishops and the local secular authorities.They have compromised on doctrine and theology in real life.

It was the same at the recent Lepanto Foundation Conference in Rome when the New Theology was being criticized by the speakers, who in reality use the 
New Theology, Cushingism, to interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and EENS.Roberto dei Mattei and John Lamont like Fr. Anthony Cekada remain politically correct with the Left.All is well. It is as if they use the LOHO mistake to stay alive.
Similarly it seems difficult for Louis Verrecchio to say that UR 3 in Vatican Council II refers to a hypothetical case.I e-mailed him the correction.This was not the first time. There is no comment from him, for or against. It's as if he does not understand.

UR 3 refers to a hypothetical and theoretical cases for us and not someone practically seen in Heaven, saved as a Protestant in his religion.What's so difficult to understand about this?
He will continue to interpret UR 3 as being a non Catholic who has been saved outside the Church and is known personally to him. So of course it becomes a rupture with the dogma EENS. 


Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing about the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism( according to L.A) in the interpretation of the Council.The website Whispers of Restoration is promoting these books.
There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism. Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5.
-Lionel Andrades

Vieni dal Libano, matrimonio Chiara e Stefano Mariani

ASSISI 2018 MELINDA DUMITRESCU e PICCOLE STELLE DI GESU e MARIA




ASSISI 2018-MADRE ROSARIA DELLA CARITA'





Mladifest Medjugorje 2018 - Gloria

It is not enough to present Traditional Catholic Catechisms

Image result for website whispers of Restoration
The website Whispers of Restoration states that among their most accessed resources is the Traditional Catholic Catechisms.But they do not realize that this is meaningless .Since if they interpret these Catechisms with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to known people saved outside the Catholic Church, as does the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), then these catechisms become a rupture with the old ecclesiology ( supported by these traditional catechisms), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors( ecumenism of return etc), and they make Mission and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Jesus unnecessary.
So when they refer to the Catechisms they have to make it clear that they can be interpreted in two ways.For example BOD and I.I mentioned in the Catechisms of the Council of Trent and Pius X.Catholics  interpret the baptism of desire(BOB), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as referring to known or unknown people, objective or implicit cases, visible or invisible people or as I put it, it is Cushingite or Feeneyite.
The editorial team at the Whispers of Restoration do not realize that they are interpreting all the Catechisms with Cushingism, they use an irrational premise and so there is a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
When hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are considered to be non hypothetical and objective people in the present times saved outside the Church, even though none of them are visible, I call this action Cushingism.
When hypothetical cases of  BOD, BOB and I.I are just hypothetical there are no concrete examples of salvation outside the Church.So there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS, the past ecclesiology, the ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors, the need for Mission to non Catholics and the proclamation of the necessity of the non separation of Church and State with the Social Reign of Christ the King.
When they interpret the traditional Catholic Catechisms with Cushingism then they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II ( Feneeyite). It is in harmony with EENS(Cushingite) and Vatican Council II(Cushingite).
When the traditional catechisms affirm the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, then there is a rupture with Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and so the editors of Whispers of Restoration reject the Council.Since obviously Vatican Council II(C) is a rupture with Traditon.
Cushingism, the false premise, the false reasoning and heresy creates the rupture and not the Council per se.
This is what the editors at Whispers of Restoration do not seem to understand and they are unable to discuss this issue.They cannot critique what I write.
So they have excluded the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) from the list of Catechisms since obviously they are interpreting it with Cushingism.So for them the Catechism(1994) is a rupture with the other Catechisms and the past ecclesiology of the Church.
Like wise they have produced books critical of Vatican Council II, which have all interpreted the Council with Cushingism and so there is a rupture with the Traditional Catechisms of the Church.
I affirm all those Traditional Catechisms along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) and Vatican Council II and I interpret them all with Feeneyism.
With Feeneyism as a theology and philosophy the editors of Whispers of Restoration will not have to be called, schismatics and heretics.
Instead they can call the liberals and the ecclesiastics at the Vatican, heretics and schismatics.
With their Cushingite reasoning, they create a rupture with Tradition.
Then Whispers of Restoration can appeal to all to interpret magisterial documents with a rational and traditional theology to create a hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.-Lionel Andrades

Incrível Vídeo dos Videntes de Medjugorje no Início das Apariçoes

MEDJUGORJE BRASIL ÊXTASE DE MIRJANA EM 02 02 2018

MESSAGGIO DAL 2 AGOSTO 2018 A MEDJUGORJE ... MESSAGGIO DELLA VERGINE MAR...







Religious communities are not telling Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF, that all this confusion cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and so it is not magisterial.

AUGUST 2, 2018

Religious communities are not telling Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF, that all this confusion cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and so it is not magisterial.


What a theological mess is approved by theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican for Catholics in general.First they approved the interpretation ofinvisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church, so the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) was made obsolete.With an irrational premise, invisible non Catholics are visible, they got rid of the dogma EENS.This was deception. 1
Then in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission(Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized) they rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.Since they assumed there was known salvation in the present times, known non Catholics saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I etc.
They also questioned the traditional teaching on Limbo( The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized) since for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Ladaria there were known to them  infants and adults who were saved outside the Church.
Invisible people cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS. There would have to be practical exceptions for them to claim the dogma EENS was obsolete.
They still persist in this since there is no one to question them.
The ITC papers also malign the priest Fr. Leonard Feeney since he was saying, traditionally and with common sense,  that invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were just invisible.
This was not bad enough for them.They extended the error to the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The CDF then interpreted Vatican Council II with the same irrationality. Invisible for them cases of being saved in  LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were projected as visible exceptions to the dogma EENS and the past exclusvist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
The CDF still approves this.No one is asking the cardinals and archbishops employed there to resign.This is the way the Catholic Church works for everyone.
Since there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I,LG 8 etc, they have changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed's, ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. Now it has become ' I believe in three or more new baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.They are BOD, BOB and I.I, LG 8 etc.
For the popes before the 1930's, to change the understanding of the Nicene Creed, would be first class heresy.They CDF Prefect would have been expelled.
So you can imagine the confusion among Catholics today since it is the CDF which is in schism with the past popes, affirming heresy with the use of an irrationality and enforcing it on the SSPX and on all religious communities, in exchange for canonical recognition.
In the past there was mission.It was understood that most people on earth were on the way to Hell.They lacked Catholic Faith, in the Catholic Church at the time of death.So the natives in the USA before Columbus went there were oriented to Hell.It was the same with the pagans in India and China.But now it is said that since there are 'known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance' not everyone needs to enter the Church but only those who 'know', who are not ignorant of Jesus and the Church. This new doctrine ( only those who know need to enter the Church) based on the irrational premise( known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance) creates a non-traditional conclusion(outside the Church there is known salvation) and theology( there is no need for mission any more). This error was protected by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But Cardinal Ratzinger and those whom he employed at the CDF should have known that even with this error the Council can be interpreted in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS. In this sense nothing had changed.
Even with this error in Vatican Council II and the Catechism(1994), these magisterial documents can be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be traditional, there would be no rupture with the past ecclesiology.No new theology was created or had to be created.Without the common error we simply return to the old theology, the old ecclesiology, the ecumenism of return and traditional mission doctrine.
But the CDF cardinals and archbishops and the two popes are not talking about this. They actually want a rupture with Tradition.
They have not created any process canonically so that they can be thrown out of office, at least, for their non professional activities.
Even at the secular level it would be judged that the use of a false premise, is a deception and a falsehood. It is unethical.It is malafide especially when the accused are informed and they persist in it.
Now Catholics in general have to affirm heresy and schism in order to be in good standing with the Church.This is evil. The New Code of Canon Law 1983 enforces this evil.

Cardinals and bishops are not asking the 'management' at the CDF to quit.Nor are lay Catholics telling them via the secular institutions,that their activity is unethical.Religious communities are not questioning the canonical recognition of  Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j, Prefect of the CDF.All  this confusion  cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and so it is not magisterial.
-Lionel Andrades
1

AUGUST 1, 2018

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j, Archbishops Guido Pozzo and Augustine di Noia at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(CDF) Vatican should resign or go Emeritus.They have overlooked objective mistakes in Church-documents
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-and.html

__________________________________________________


AUGUST 1, 2018


Repost : I love Vatican Council II it has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-i-love-vatican-council-ii-it-has.html


_________________________________________________________

Repost : Cardinal Luiz Ladaria : Official text with Abjuration and Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity

AUGUST 2, 2018

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria : Official text with Abjuration and Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity

Here is the official text of the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity from the Vatican website. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj,Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican,would abjure his errors and confirm the faith in the  points mentioned in the brackets.

The Holy See

PROFESSION OF FAITH

I, Luiz Ladaria,, with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit ( who teaches the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation and that all non Catholics in the present times are oriented to Hell with no known exception),the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ( outside of which there is no salvation and all need to be members of this Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.Since in Heaven there are only Catholics.) 

I confess  one baptism for the forgiveness of sins ( which is the baptism of water and not three  or more known baptisms BOD, BOB and I.I,which  also exclude the baptism of water) and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.( and this includes the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as defined by three Church Councils and supported by Vatican Council II(AG 7).It is important to note that in Vatican Council II,  LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not practical exceptions to EENS)
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.( this means there are no visible and personally known exceptions in faith and morals. We cannot judge when manifest mortal sin is not a mortal sin and a Catholic can be given the Eucharist.If there is an exception it can only be known to God.
Neither can we judge practical exceptions to the traditional teachings on faith and salvation, in particular the dogma EENS, with  BOD, BOB and I.I not being known people whom we can judge saved outside the Church.
 I abjure the error made  by the liberal theologians in assuming invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were in reality visible and known people saved outside the Catholic Church)
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act ( and as long as they do not contain objective error, violate the Principle of Non Contradiction and reject the traditional teachings of the Church with the use of a false premise.)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19880701_professio-fidei_en.html






The Holy See



OATH OF FIDELITY
ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE
TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
(Formula to be used by members of the Christian faithful mentioned in canon 833, nn. 5-8)
I, Luiz Ladaria, in assuming the office of ………, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.
With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the duties incumbent on me toward the Church, both universal and particular, in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service.
In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it.
I hereby announce that I affirm the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood (BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) which refer to invisible people in 2018.They are  only  hypothetical cases and not personally known people saved outside the Catholic Church in the present times.So I affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS in harmony with invisibe for us BOD, BOB and I.I.The Catholic Church still has the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation as it was known over the centuries.
I hereby announce that I affirm LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc as also referring to hypothetical cases and so they are not practical exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma EENS as it was known to the Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century.So Vatican Council II is not a  rupture with the 'strict interpretation ' of the dogma EENS for me.
I support the interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and acknowledge the mistake made by the CDF (Holy Office 1949) when they assumed invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. center. On behalf of the CDF I apologize to the St.Benedict Centers in the USA for the mistake made by my predecessors in the late 1940's.
I interpret the Nicene Creed, the Catechisms and the statements on EENS made by  the popes and saints and Church Councils , always with BOD, BOB and I.I referring to unknown and theoretical cases. If they existed they could only be known to God and would be followed by the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since this is the dogmatic teaching of the Church in the Extraordinary Magisterium ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).
Since there is no known salvation outside the Church for us, no physically visible cases, and this is common sense, I affirm the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return. There is  no known Anonymous Christian saved outside the Church in another religion.
I do hereby abjure my errors of the past when I interpreted  BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to the known people saved outside the Church.
I hereby abjure  my error in interpreting Vatican Council II,the Catechisms, the Nicene Creed and other magisterial documents with an irrational premise, to create a rupture with Tradition(past ecclesiology, Syllabus of Errors etc)
I reject the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology and New Evangelisation which was based on there being known salvation outside the Catholic Church and BOD, BOB and I.I being objective cases in our reality.
Since there is no known salvation outside the Church the priority for saving souls is the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King with the non separation of Church and State.
I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.
I shall interpret all references to BOD, BOB and I.I in Canon Law as referring to hypothetical and theoretical cases which could only be known to God. So they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology of the Church or the understanding on outside the Church there is no salvation.
I support the SSPX General Chapter Statement on Doctrine(2012) which affirmed traditional EENS and I reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was based on an objective mistake( non Catholics who have died outside the Church and are saved in Heaven are visible on earth to be objective exceptions to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation) which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I abjure my statement on March 1,2018 at the Placeut Deo Press Conference when I suggested there were known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church and this was indicated in Lumen Gentium 8( subsists in). So I wrongly said that the Church no more has a superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.
I abjure the statement of Pope Benedict XVI in March 2016 in the interview with Avvenire.He said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century,since for him, there was a development with Vatican Council II. He meant Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
I do not support his suggesting that Vatican Council II ended the motiviation for mission. For me there is no known salvation outside the Church. So the traditional understanding of mission, as it was known to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages has not changed.
With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish.
I shall obey the  Bishops when they are in harmony with the past ecclesiology and are not teaching innovations based on hypothetical cases not being hypothetical in the present times.Then I have the obligation to reject it since this is not the Deposit of the Faith.
 I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.
So help me God, and God’s Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.

(Variations in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the formulary,

for use by those members of the Christian faithful indicated in can. 833, n. 8)

I shall foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall insist on the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.
I shall reject disunity created  when the Code of Canon Law is interpreted as saying unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known, and that  invisible cases are objective exceptions to EENS and the  Syllabus of Errors.
With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also — with due regard for the character and purpose of my institute — faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.
(Compiled by Lionel Andrades as a public service for Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the Catholic Church  the Mystical Body of Jesus.It can be used freely by any one and no permission is required from me).
-Lionel Andrades

____________________________________ 




AUGUST 2, 2018

Card.Luiz Ladaria's Oath of Office and Profession of Faith was false and an oath to Modernism : he should not have canonical recognition unless he abjures his errrors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/cardinal-luiz-ladarias-oath-of-office.html


AUGUST 2, 2018

Religious communities are not questioning the canonical recognition of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria (Grafics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/religious-communities-are-not.html




AUGUST 2, 2018

Religious communities are not telling Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF, that all this confusion cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and so it is not magisterial

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/religious-communities-are-not-telling.html

______________________________________

Repost : Card.Luiz Ladaria's Oath of Office and Profession of Faith was false and an oath to Modernism : he should not have canonical recognition unless he abjures his errors

AUGUST 2, 2018

Card.Luiz Ladaria's Oath of Office and Profession of Faith was false and an oath to Modernism : he should not have canonical recognition unless he abjures his errors

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria's Oath of Office was false since he misinterpreted the Nicene Creed, which he had to read out, with irrational Cushingite theology. When he became the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) he interpreted the Nicene Creed differently from me.So his Profession of Faith would also be different. He chose the modernist version.
So the result is with Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism there is a rupture with Tradition for him. I avoid Cushingism and so I am back to the old theology.Vatican Council II isnot a rupture with Tradition for me.-Lionel Andrades















































-

AUGUST 2, 2018

Religious communities are not questioning the canonical recognition of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria (Grafics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/religious-communities-are-not.html




AUGUST 2, 2018

Religious communities are not telling Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF, that all this confusion cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and so it is not magisterial  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/religious-communities-are-not-telling.html


______________________________________



AUGUST 1, 2018


Repost : I love Vatican Council II it has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-i-love-vatican-council-ii-it-has.html   
_________________________________________________________