-Lionel Andrades
Friday, November 23, 2018
Should not the cardinals and bishops also interpret BOD, BOB and I.I rationally and set an example for the pope?
The Holy Mass which Pope Francis offers is a sacrilege for him since he has changed the interpretation and understanding of the Nicene Creed, rejected the Athanasius Creed, rejected the centuries-old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, rejected a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechisms and put aside the past ecclesiology upon which was based an ecumenism of return and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King.All this was possible since he interprets the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as exceptions to EENS.In other words he implies that there are personally known people saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I for them to be objective exceptions, to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell(Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES FOR HIM
This also means magisterial documents of the past contradict themselves for the pope.The Catechism of Pope Pius X, when it mentions invincible ignorance, which refers to someone who is known and saved outside the Church in the present times, for the pope, would contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there only being an ecumenism of return.
This also means magisterial documents of the past contradict themselves for the pope.The Catechism of Pope Pius X, when it mentions invincible ignorance, which refers to someone who is known and saved outside the Church in the present times, for the pope, would contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there only being an ecumenism of return.
Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) would contradict itself for the pope.It would say all need the baptism of water for salvation but some do not ( n.1257).Similarly the saints would also contradict themselves for Pope Francis, when they affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, with visible for the pope, cases of BOD,BOB and I.I.
FOR ME THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION
FOR ME THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION
For me CCC 1257 ( The Necessity of Baptism) does not contradict itself.We cannot know of any particular person, saved outside the Church since 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'.
VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISMS HAVE A CONTINUITY WITH EENS FOR ME
VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISMS HAVE A CONTINUITY WITH EENS FOR ME
BOD, BOB and I.I are hypothetical and theoretical references only for .They cannot be anything else for us humans. They are speculation with good will.So for me the Catechism of Pope Pius X does not contradict the Syllabus.The Athanasius Creed is not rejected and the Nicene Creed does not have a new understanding.EENS is the same as it was in the 16th century. Vatican Council II and the Catechisms are not a rupture with the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Church.
THERE IS NO KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH IN 2018 FOR ME
Since there is no known salvation outside the Church for me , we still have the traditional motivation for Mission i.e we know that most people die outside the Church without faith and baptism and so they are oriented to Hell (AG 7 LG 14).There is the need for the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.The understanding of ecclesiology is the same for me before and after Vatican Council II.We still have the Old Theology, Old Ecumenism, Old Evangelisation and Old Ecclesiology based on Vatican Council II and tradition. Tradition (EENS/Syllabus etc) is not contradicted by hypothetical LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 in Vatican Council II.
POPE FRANCIS UN-LIKE ME CHOOSES A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST
THERE IS NO KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH IN 2018 FOR ME
Since there is no known salvation outside the Church for me , we still have the traditional motivation for Mission i.e we know that most people die outside the Church without faith and baptism and so they are oriented to Hell (AG 7 LG 14).There is the need for the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.The understanding of ecclesiology is the same for me before and after Vatican Council II.We still have the Old Theology, Old Ecumenism, Old Evangelisation and Old Ecclesiology based on Vatican Council II and tradition. Tradition (EENS/Syllabus etc) is not contradicted by hypothetical LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 in Vatican Council II.
POPE FRANCIS UN-LIKE ME CHOOSES A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST
But this is not the interpretation of Pope Francis .He chooses to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past. His interpretation and mine are different.
His interpretation of the Creeds is first class heresy.For him the Nicene and Athansius Creed is a rupture with EENS while for me there is a continuity.
POPE IN MORTAL SIN OF FAITH
POPE IN MORTAL SIN OF FAITH
The pope is in a mortal sin of faith, he is rejecting de fide teachings of the Church which are obligatory for all Catholics to believe in.He is actually rejecting doctrine.It cannot be said here that there is a change in discipline.
Neither can he cite Vatican Council II for the change in doctrine without him using an irrational premise and inference which I avoid.
This is a scandal.
He offers Mass in sacrilege.
He needs to correct the error in public and end the scandal.
Why would a cardinal, bishop or priest want to con celebrate Holy Mass with Pope Francis who does not end this scandal and sacrilege?
Why would Catholics who know all this, want to receive the Sacraments from him?
Should not the cardinals and bishops also interpret BOD, BOB and I.I rationally and set an example for the pope?
-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 22, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
