Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Repost : Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional

NOVEMBER 11, 2014

Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional

Fr.Nicholas Gruner assumes that the deceased now saved in Heaven are visible to us on earth and are explicit exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church with faith and baptism. So for him Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fault is not with Vatican Council.He wrongly infers that there are knownexceptions mentioned in Vatican Council to the dogma.The  text of the Council does not state that there are exceptions to the dogma or that LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to explicit- for- us cases.
The cardinals and bishops at the Vatican are also using this irrational inference and so Vatican Council II is  projected as a break with Tradition; extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.Cardinal Innocenti, Cardinal Sanchez, Cardinal Agustoni, Archbishop Sepe, Archbishop Grochelewski, and Bishop Forte are using the same irrational premise. Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional.-L.A

Continued

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/11/frnicholas-gruner-has-only-to-interpret.html

Repost : All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference at Chicago this week to use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

NOVEMBER 11, 2014

All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference at Chicago this week to use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference with talks and workshop organised by Our Lady’s Army of Advocates in Chicago this week ( Nov.14-16,2014) are expected to use an irrational inference in the interpetation of Vatican Council II. So the Council will be projected as a break with Tradition when really it is the opposite.
http://www.fatima.org/pdf/ChicagoHyatt.pdf

Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/frnicholas-gruner-has-only-to-interpret.html
Why did Fr.Nicholas Gruner not just tell the pope that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/why-did-frnicholas-gruner-not-just-tell.html
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/fcchicago/#comment-27105

Repost : It is my right ( and yours too) to not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do the Bologna School

NOVEMBER 11, 2014

It is my right ( and yours too) to not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do the Bologna School



I have received an e-mail from a priest.


Dear Father...,
"So the Council will be projected as a break with Tradition when really it is the opposite"

Lionel: 
When a premise is used in the interpretation the Council becomes a break with Tradition when the premise is avoided the Council is in agreement with Tradition.I seem to be the only one interpreting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.
We wait that you prove it ! The reality of the Catholic Church in Europe is just showing us that the Concil Vat. II is a break and that Card. Ratzinger qualified the Concil Vat. II as UN ANTI-SYLLABUS.

Lionel: 
True they are interpreting Vatican Council II with a premise.
For example they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those who are saved in invincible ignorance.These cases are allegedly saved without the baptism of water and  are allegedly visible on earth to be explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. So the conclusion for them is that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.

For me, Lionel, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a possibility known only to God.It is a hypothtical case for me. Hypothetical , theoretical cases cannot be de facto exceptions in 2014 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. We cannot see or meet these theoretical cases.So LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would have to be visible to be an exception. Invisible cases are not exceptions. So Vatican Council II becomes traditional for me.

For people in general UR 3,NA 3,LG 8 etc refer to visible in the flesh cases in 2014. This is irrational. To assume that the dead -saved as such are visible on earth, is an irrationality. This is the false premise used by the SSPX and Cardinal Kaspar in the interpretation of the Council. Any Church document interpreted with this irrational premise ( the visible dead theory) will result in a break with reason and the past.

For me these cases are not explicit and known in personal cases. So they are irrelevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

 The Theological School of Bologna always qualified this same Concil as A BREAK and A NEW START. Well ! You don't agree with Card. Ratzinger and the School of Bologna, it's your right.

Lionel:
 It is my right ( and yours too) to not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do the Bologna School.
Pretending that the Concil of Vatican II didn't bring many BREAKS and RUPTURES in the catholic theology is just incorrect.
Lionel:
 I accept that for people in general  Vatican Council II is a break with the past. One does not have to be a theologian to observe this. 
However I know the cause of the break with tradition and I avoid it. You are still not aware of the precise cause.
 What about: Oecumenism, Religious freedom, Collegiality, Relation with Judaism and so on ? Well if you don't agree that there are RUPTURES on this points it's your choise but all qualified catholic theologians confirm this BREAKS in the catholic theology.
Lionel: 
All the theologians are using an irrational premise which has come to us from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in real life.Then they concluded that these visible cases ( though dead) are physically seen and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Ghosts are visible exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. So they concluded that there is salvation outside the Church. 
This error can be seen in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without baptism'. 
Are you pretending too that many topics of the last Synod for the Family wasn't A BREAK with the traditional theology of the Catholic Church
Lionel:
 Before the Synod on the Family, Cardinal Kaspar referred to Vatican Council II (UR 3) using this same error,which  I have mentioned above.No one pointed out the error to him. Since the SSPX makes the same error and are unaware of it. This is useful for Cardinal Kaspar and the liberals.
It's nice to affirme "it's not a break" but as we say: "What is not prove don't existe"
Lionel: 
I have written extensively on this subject on my blog, Eucharist and Mission, over the last few years. I have shown how the Council is not a break with the past when the false premise is avoided.I have been supported by Catholic priests in Rome, an American lay apologist and an Archbishop. They agree that Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus when the premise is not used in the interpretation.

On the other hand you cannot prove that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014. Do you know any one who will be saved this year without the baptism of water? Can there be anyone known to you this year who does not need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation? Then how can Vatican Council II refer to exceptions to the dogma?
-Lionel Andrades

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/11/it-is-my-right-and-yours-too-to-not-use.html

Repost : Vatican II indicates all Muslims and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7)

 NOVEMBER 12, 2014


Vatican II indicates all Muslims and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7)

Sr.Noble:
Vatican II holds all the answers.

Lionel:
Yes. It indicates that all Muslims and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7).

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
All Muslims are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church is also the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined three times.
Sr.Noble:
We Worship the Same God: The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, makes this clear:
Lionel:
There is one Creator and not two. We worship one Creator but our concept of God is not the same. There is one Creator but Hell also exists.

Sr.Noble:
[T]he plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. (emphasis mine)
Lionel:
The plan of salvation includes all people. However to receive this salvation they need to enter the Catholic Church (Dominus Iesus 20).
Jesus died for all.However to receive this salvation all need to respond with faith Jesus in the Catholic Church. Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Sr.Noble:
Islam Contains Rays of Truth and Holiness: The Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, says:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.
Lionel:
There could be good things in the religion but their religion is a false path to salvation, according to Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14 etc). All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_187851.php
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/11/vatican-ii-indicates-that-all-muslims.html

Repost : We cannot meet or know an exception to the dogma in 2014

NOVEMBER 19, 2014

We cannot meet or know an exception to the dogma in 2014

bannerCraigV:
Cyprian: “So the Council in LG 14 first teaches that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation,
Lionel:

Correct.
CraigV:
 and then says in UR 3 that Our Lord himself has not refrained from using the sects as “means of salvation”.
Lionel:
Yes and this passage is not an exception to the orthodox one above.
It would be exception if you considered these cases as being visible to us in the present times i.e de facto, known cases in 2014....
 
CraigV:
They changed the meaning/understanding of “necessary.” Where before it meant it was necessary to be inside the church for salvation, the new meaning/understanding is that it is necessary that this church exists so that it can shoot out its rays of salvation to heretics, schismatic and unbelievers.
Lionel:
If someone is saved in another religion or a Christian sect he would be saved through Jesus and the Church. God would grant him the grace necessary to be a Catholic.
God could send a preacher to him ( St.Thomas Aquinas).
In general non Catholics are oriented to Hell without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water ( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc).So if there is someone saved in another religion, he is not an exception to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
We cannot meet or know an exception to the dogma in 2014.

CraigV:
And yes…that’s a direct contradiction with the infallibly defined EENS dogma and stands in direct contradiction with the infallible declarations of Vatican One that mandated the same meaning and understanding of dogmas be maintained under pain of anathema.
Lionel:
Yes. Only if you consider these cases as being visible and known to us in 2014.
Otherwise they are irrelevant to the dogma and Tradition.

-Lionel Andrades
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/topic/louie-verrecchio-and-jimmy-akin/page/4/

https://leomcwatkinsfilms.com/merchandise/product/convert-bumper-sticker

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/11/we-cannot-meet-or-know-exception-to.html

Repost : Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio

NOVEMBER 8, 2014

Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio


S.Armaticus
Crying heresy – Bishop Athanasius cries even worse than this
 






Lionel:
Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio in the video above.
Bishop Schneider has called for a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II.He is not aware that there can be two ways of interpreting UR 3, for example, and the rest of Vatican Council II.
He assumes UR 3 refers to known cases in the present times who are a break with Tradition.The visible- dead.
For me UR 3 refers to a possibility known only to God.It is a hypothethical case. So it is not an exception to Tradition ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Catechism of Pope Pius X etc).
He uses an irrational premise, as do John Vennari and Louie Verrechio, in the interpretation of UR 3 ( and also NA 2,LG 16, LG 8 etc).
I do not add a premise in the interpretation of UR 3, NA 2, LG 16,LG 8 etc.
So for me Vatican Council II is not a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.
Bishop Schneider’s interpretation of Vatican Council II is heretical, non traditional and irrational. He is not aware that the premise he uses , comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is responsible for all this confusion.
According to Ad Gentes 7 all need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation.All signifies there are no know exceptions in 2014. There are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. LG 16,UR 3 cannot be an exception since humanly we cannot see people who are now in Heaven.
Ad Gentes 7 is saying all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. It is saying that the Prophet Mohammad needed faith and baptism for salvation.He did not have it.
If liberals wrongly say that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are damned (LG 14) (and imply that we can know these cases in 2014 for them to be exceptions) then it must be noted that the Quran indicates that the Prophet Mohammed knew about Jesus and the Church and yet chose to found another religion.In this religion they take his name when they pray and circle a big stone believing their sins are forgiven.
Ad Gentes 7 indicates, all the members of the B’Nai Brith are on the way to Hell without faith and baptism. They are educated and are aware of Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter.
Most people do not have faith and baptism at the time of death. Jesus says the way to Heaven is narrow and the way to Hell is wide and most people take it. Most people die without the baptism of water( John 3:5, Mk.16:16), without the Sacrament of Confession and with mortal sin on their soul.
This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II and after Vatican Council II and it is not just a personal opinion. I am quoting you Church text in Vatican Council II which affirms Tradition and which is still ignored by Bishop Athanasius Schnieder, John Vennari and Louie Verrecchio
.-Lionel Andrades
 
 

No one from the SSPX to defend John Vennari and Louie Verrecchiohttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/no-one-from-sspx-to-defend-john-vennari.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/11/bishop-athanasius-schneider-makes-same.html

Repost : John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II

 NOVEMBER 9, 2014

John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II


 John Vennarri says that one has to approach Vatican CounciCouncil II documents (2:19) from a Catholic point of view otherwise the Council could be misleading. He says that we do not approach the Council of Trent or Vatican I similarly.Vatican Council II instead he says has to be read as Catholic with all these presuppositions because the Council documents do not necessarily give you a Catholic point of view.


Lionel:
Even with other Church documents John Vennari, Louie Verrecchi, Cardinal Walter Kaspar and the SSPX bishops and priests make the same mistake.
Take for example the Catechism of Pope Pius X. One has to be careful in the interpretation, similar to Vatican Council II.
In the Catechism of Pope Pius X 27 Q is not contradicted by 29 Q unless you assume that those who have received implicit desire (baptism of desire) are explicit for us .So one has to be careful here.

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X 1905,Rome.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905


1. On the University of Bristol video, Prof. Gavin D’Costa,a liberal Catholic professor of theology, assumed that ‘ a ray of Truth’ mentioned in Nostra Aetate 2 is explicit for us. So Nostra Aetate is considered an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation i.e 27 Q of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

This is objectively wrong

2.In 2013 Bishop Fellay wrote the preface for the book written by the SSPX theologian Fr.Jean Marie Gleaze, Vaticano II- Un Dibattito Aperto (Editrice Ichthys). He recommended the book.

Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way ?
Fr.Gleize is making the same error as the other priests and bishops of the SSPX in assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, imperfect communion with the Church etc are visible exceptions. In faith we accept the baptism of desire as being implicit. It is a possibility. It is not an exception.It is hypothetical and not an exception to 27Q.
3.Also there is no text in Mystici Corporis which says there is an exceptional way. Neither does the Catechism of Pope Pius X state that there is an exception to 27Q.It does not state that 29Q is an exception.So Mystici Corporis has also to be read carefully.
4.Similarly the Council of Trent has to be read with a rational and Catholic approach because of the confusion caused by theologians.

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not say if it is de facto or de jure known to us. Just about everyone, from the Most Holy Family Monastery to the Urbaniana, Angelicum, Gregorian and other Pontifical Universities in Rome assume, it is de facto known to us in the present times.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”-Council of Trent

5.And finally there is the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation on the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/fcchicago/#comment-27061


_____________________________________



SSPX ANNOUNCE ACCEPTANCE OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IN LINE WITH THE SYLLABUS OF ERROR, THE DOGMA ON EXCLUSIVE SALVATION AND WITHOUT THE CUSHING ERROR. THERE WILL BE WORLD WIDE CONSTERNATION ON THE LEFT

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) General Chapter Statement (July 19,2012) shows that they can accept Vatican Council with the hermeneutic of continuity.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/11/john-vennari-cardinal-kaspar-and-so.html

Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite

Image result for Photos Questions and Answers

What are we defending Vatican Council II any more for ?
Since there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. 1.One of the Lefebvrist traditionalists, the liberals and Masons and the other 2. mine.

There is Vatican Council II 1.Cushingite and Vatican Council II 2.Feeneyite.

The liberals and traditionalists only know of Vatican Council II Cushingite. It is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the old ecumenism, the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors. It is heretical. It supports apostasy in the Church and it is the only Vatican Council II understood by the popes, cardinals and bishops.

Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is in harmony with the past ecclesiology, the ecumenism of return, Syllabus of Errors and the old Catechisms.
There are also two interpretations of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I). There can be BOD, BOB and I.I, Cushingite or Feeneyite.
So one can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or BOD,BOB and I.I, Feeneyite.
It is the same with the Catechisms. We can interpet the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) with BOD,BOB and I.I, Cushingite or Feeneyite.The conclusion changes. The conclusion is different.
-Lionel Andrades




SEPTEMBER 17, 2018


Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/until-today-popes-and-cardinals-make.html






Video: Did Communists Insert Sinners Into Seminaries?

Video: Did Communists Insert Sinners Into Seminaries?

From Youtube:

 https://spiritdailyblog.com/news/video-did-communist-insert-gays-into-seminaries