Repost : This is the Conciliar Church for me

JANUARY 10, 2018

This is the Conciliar Church for me

Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower,Germans Have Little Faith in the Catholic Church -- Pope's Popularity Declines


Tancred and I are affirming the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Even Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation.All. Everyone. (Ad Gentes 7). So Vatican Council II(AG 7) indicates most people today are on the way to Hell. Since they die without faith and baptism.
So this is a Conciliar teaching of the Church.It affirms the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.(John 3:5,Mark 16:16).This is the Conciliar Church for me.
___________________

(Lionel: For the Fraternity of St.Peter there is a break with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church but for me there is none)



I am affirming the Nicene Creed as it was understood in the 1930's and before.
I am affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I am affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted in the 16th century.
So I am still in the same Catholic Church.
Could you say the same for Pope Benedict and the German bishops and cardinals?
I am affirming the magisterial teachings of the Church over the centuries.I am affirming Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church without using an irrational premise.
For me the past ecclesiology of the Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II.
So why do you say that I am in a cult?
I am not saying anything new.I am a Catholic, the only people who are in Heaven today with faith and baptism.Again, this is not just a personal view,but it has been the teaching of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
-Lionel Andrades

https://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2018/01/germans-have-little-faith-in-catholic.html?showComment=1515585586414#c5449098148233355087

Repost : It's un- precedented in over 50 years. All the reports on Vatican Council II have not reported on this.Philosophical error runs through the Council text.

DECEMBER 31, 2017

It's un- precedented in over 50 years. All the reports on Vatican Council II have not reported on this.Philosophical error runs through the Council text.

DECEMBER 18, 2016

It's un- precedented in over 50 years. All the reports on Vatican Council II have not reported on this.Philosophical error runs through the Council text.

It's un- precedented in over 50 years. All the reports on Vatican Council II have not reported on this.There is a philosophical error in Vatican Council II. It was not detected. It makes the Council a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known in the 16th century.When the philosophical error is side stepped, Vatican Council II emerges new and different.It is in perfect harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Feeneyism is the missing link.If we can put aside being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire for a moment, and then look at Vatican Council II, it is a different Council.This will be uncomfortable for those who interpreted the Council as 'a revolution' or with 'a new spirit.'

Atila S.Guimaraes and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms and Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no salvation outside the Church.1

I  instead affirm the traditional doctrines of the Church, with  citations from Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS. I am not a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. I  point out the irrationality of the new theology which is used in general in the Catholic Church and which can be avoided.I affirm the baptism of desire in principle and do not believe that the baptism of desire is a  known cases in 2016 to be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is the break off point!
I have side stepped the Rahner, Kung,Ratzinger,Kasper new theology. I choose not to look at Vatican Council II with their lens. For them the baptism of desire in principle refers to a known caseand is an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS. So LG 14, LG 16 etc would be a rupture with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X...Not for me.
The FSSP,the present Vatican Curia,the St.Benedict Centers and the SSPX,like the liberal cardinals  are all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.They interpret the Council assuming invisible cases are objectively visible in 2016.This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction and they all can correct themself.
Yes there are lay and religious Catholics who are aware of the error and have proclaimed it. I assume they proclaim the Catholic Faith without the common confusion, privately.If they proclaimed it in public as  priests they could be suspended by the present magisterium supported by the political Left.

The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. We see here that the living Magisterium is irrational. Their conclusion is non traditional and heretical. They can choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally if they want to. 2

The liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II could only be made with the philosophical error.This interpretation was made by assuming what is hypothetical is not hypothetical.Invisible cases were considered visible.The liberals' famous case of the catechumen who allegedly was known is really unknown.With this false premise(visible cases of the baptism of desire etc) a non traditional conclusion (there is known salvation outside the Church so the dogma has exceptions)was created.

This non traditional and heretical conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II was rejected by the traditionalists.However it was accepted by the magisterium, the liberals and the Left.3

1949 ERROR PACKAGED IN VATICAN COUNCIL II

The magisterium made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr., Leonard Feeney.It inferred that the baptism of desire was relevant and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The cardinals wrongly inferred that there were known cases of the baptism of desire.

This mistake from 1949 was then incorporated into the text of Vatican Council II.

When interpreting Vatican Council II, it is important to  assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical. In this way we eliminate the New Theology and return to the old ecclesiology of the Church.It's simple.

Of course this error is human error and it cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality.4

This is unprecedented.Objective errors have been discovered in Vatican Council II.I am referring not just to theology.Faulty reasoning has created a new theology.There are errors made in principle.As a norm it seeps throughout the Council-text.

In principle the Vatican Council II Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible.

In principle they assumed people in Heaven are objectively visible on earth.

In principle they assumed that we can know of non Catholics on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

In general, as a norm, the Principle of Non Contradiction was violated.

The baptism of desire; the case of the unknown catechumen who sought the baptism of water but died before it was given to him,is always an invisible case. It was not so for the Council Fathers.They assumed this  catechumen was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it was a visible case for them.It had to be visible to be an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS.Their premise was wrong.How can there be a visible case of this catechumen being saved?

The Council Fathers violated basic laws of logic and philosophical reasoning.

They were following the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which did away with the centuries old interpretation of EENS.The simple Letter from a cardinal put aside the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils. It was put aside by assuming the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible instead of invisible cases.This was a new precedent in the Church. An innovation in theology.It created a new doctrine which has been placed in Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.5

Now that we know where the mistake is we can correct it. We can turn the Church around.We can place it back on its old and rational theological rails.

-Lionel Andrades

1

NOVEMBER 1, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/atila-s-guimaraes-and-robert-de-mattei.html

2

The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. We see here that the living Magisterium is irrational.Their conclusion is non traditional and heretical.They can choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally if they want to

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/the-holy-spirit-cannot-teach-error-we.html

3.

Unprecedented! Philosophical mistakes discovered in Vatican Council II

https://gloria.tv/article/eAHi1jMeN3fG1fWPDjpAb6e2o

4.

Vatican Council II riddled with philosphical error : two popes in principle support objective error in text

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/vatican-council-ii-riddled-with.html

5.

DECEMBER 13, 2016

Too many mistakes in Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/too-many-mistakes-in-vatican-council-ii.html

Repost : I do not refute BOD, BOB and I.I since they are not known cases for me. They do not contradict EENS,I am comfortable with them.

JANUARY 3, 2018

I do not refute BOD, BOB and I.I since they are not known cases for me. They do not contradict EENS,I am comfortable with them.

Lionel, I dont believe you really understand what you are arguing against. Your

repeated reference to visible cases in 2017 is a straw man argument.

Lionel.

I thought you agreed with me - there are no physically visible cases of BOD in 2017.

there were none in 2016 and there are none in 2018.

We cannot physically see someone saved with BOD, I.I or BOB.

Do we agree on this?

What ever are the other inferences that follow, which we accept or do  not accept, fundamentally, we agree that there are no physically visible people saved with BOD in 2017-2018 ?

___________________________

 I am not arguing that there are 2017 cases which can be known with absolute certainty.

Lionel: Are they known or not known ? Are there physically visible cases known to someone on earth?

____________________________

 I am saying that they become known only when the Church canonizes a dead

catechumem.

Lionel: O.K so you are saying that if the Church canonizes someone in 2018 and announces that this person was saved with the BOD and without the baptism of water then it would known. You mean it would be known as a possibility, in faith.

Only as a possibility or are you saying that someone in the Church would physically see such a person?

____________________________

 Also you err when you refer to these cases as "saved outside the

church" and that is actually the fundamental error in your position.

Lionel: No one is saved outside the Church for me. I affirm EENS.

_____________________________

 Canonized catechumens are saved in the Church because there is no salvation outside of

her.

Lionel : Duh!

In summary

1. I agree there are no visible cases in 2017 known with absolute certainty

(although I could argue for moral probabilities in some known cases). 

Lionel: What do you mean by absolute certaintity, are they known or not known, are they visible or not visible, can they be objectively seen or not seen?

___________________________

But you attempt to use this point to refute BOD in toto, and that doesnt work because of

point 2.

Lionel: I only accept BOD as a possibility, in theory, as a hypothetical case. It cannot be anything else for me.Since it is hypothetical it does not contradict EENS. So it is not a problem for me. I do not have to reject it. I can afirm Feeneyite EENS and also BOD.

I affirm BOD, BOB and I.I.They are not physically visible people for me.

________________________

2. There ARE known cases in the cases of canonized catechumens who were martyred

before water baptism.

Lionel: You accept this in faith, as a possibility.

For me there are no physically visible cases in 2018 and there could not be any in 1965,1949  or when someone suggested there were such cases, and mentioned it in the Martryology of the saints, just as they have mentioned it in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which has been placed in the Denzinger.

________________________

3. These cases are not exceptions to EENS because of the dogma of EENS. These

saints were joined to the Church quoad se.

Lionel: They are not exceptions to EENS for me too.

So you are saying that BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS since they are not physically visible cases(as it is for me) and that those who consider them as being exceptions to EENS are wrong e.g SSPX, Pope Benedict, CDF etc?

____________________________

So your continued appeal to no known cases in 2017 is a straw man argument that

cannot refute BOD.

Lionel. I do not refute BOD, BOB and I.I since they are not known cases for me. They do not contradict EENS,I am comfortable with them. If they happened to be known people in the present times, saved outside the Church, then only they could be exceptions to EENS.

So for me there is no known salvation outside the Church, also for you? 

-Lionel Andrades