The Catholic judges of the U.S Supreme Court interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a rupture with Catholic Tradition.This is approved by the Left.This is an ethical issue.

 The Catholic judges of the U.S Supreme Court interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a rupture with Catholic Tradition.This is approved by the Left.This is an ethical issue. -Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II is Feeneyite unless you choose to use the false premise and make it Cushingite.

 Vatican Council II is Feeneyite unless you choose to use the false premise and make it Cushingite. -Lionel Andrades

When the Vatican asks a traditionalist or conservative community or organisastion to affirm Vatican Council II go ahead and do it. Since the Council is no more a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.We have found the missing link and it works.It no more has to be Vatican Council II or Tradition. We do not have to choose from the two.

 When the Vatican asks a traditionalist or conservative community or organisastion to affirm Vatican Council II go ahead and do it. Since the Council is no more a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.We have found the missing link and it works.It no more has to be Vatican Council II or Tradition. We do not have to choose from the two. -Lionel Andrades

The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate when asked to affirm Vatican Council II by Cardinal Braz de Avez simply have to say that they affirm the Council but interpret it without the false premise and so it is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and Feeneyite EENS. The Council is no more an issue for them since they are not using the model of the SSPX and the Lefebvrsits.They are now able to affirm the Council and also exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions.

 The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate when asked to affirm Vatican Council II by Cardinal Braz de Avez simply have to say that they affirm the Council but interpret it without the false premise and so it is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and Feeneyite EENS. The Council is no more an issue for them since they are not using the model of the SSPX and the Lefebvrsits.They are now able to affirm the Council and also exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions. -Lionel Andrades

Michael Voris says he accepts Vatican Council II and recommends that every one accept the Council. He could mean Vatican Council II as interpreted by Lionel Andrades with the hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite EENS, Feeneyite Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.He rejects Cushingite EENS,Nicene Creed etc. So his Profession of Faith would be different from that of the ecclesiastics of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the USCCB.

Michael Voris says he accepts Vatican Council II and recommends that every one accept the Council. He could mean Vatican Council II as interpreted by Lionel Andrades with the hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite EENS, Feeneyite Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.He rejects Cushingite EENS,Nicene Creed etc.

So his Profession of Faith would be different from that of the ecclesiastics of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the USCCB. -Lionel Andrades

Bishop Robert Barron and Fr. Dwight Longenecker interpret LG 8, LG 16 etc as being exceptions to EENS, Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.If they considered LG 8 etc as not being exceptions to Tradition, then Vatican Council II would affirm the strict interpretation of EENS. They would emerge rigid and traditional for the Left.So it is only by confusing LG 16 etc as being an exception to EENS that they are liberal. I affirm Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc referring to only hypothetical cases.They are not exceptions to Tradition for me.

 Bishop Robert Barron and Fr. Dwight Longenecker interpret LG 8, LG 16 etc as being exceptions to EENS, Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.If they considered LG 8 etc as not being exceptions to Tradition, then Vatican Council II would affirm the strict interpretation of EENS. They would emerge rigid and traditional for the Left.So it is only by confusing LG 16 etc as being an exception to EENS that they are liberal.

I affirm Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc referring to only hypothetical cases.They are not exceptions to Tradition for me. -Lionel Andrades

If Archbishop Carlo Vigano assumes Vatican Council II is schismatic because of LG 16 etc he has made a mistake . LG 16 refers to a hypothetical case for me. So it is an exception to Tradition. The Council Fathers ( Cushing, Rahner, Ratzinger etc) made a mistake. They should not have mentioned LG 16 in the text of Vatican Council II. In principle they assumed that hypothetical cases were objective exceptions to EENS.

 If Archbishop Carlo Vigano assumes Vatican Council II is schismatic  because of LG 16  etc he has made a mistake . LG 16 refers to a hypothetical case for me. So it is an exception to Tradition. The Council Fathers ( Cushing, Rahner, Ratzinger etc) made a mistake. They should not have mentioned LG 16 in the text of Vatican Council II. In principle they assumed that hypothetical cases were objective exceptions to EENS. -Lionel Andrades

If there is an apple in a box of oranges the apple is an exception since it is different but also because it exists in that box.If it was not there it would not be an exception.Similarly Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) in Vatican Council II cannot be an exception to 16th century EENS. Since it refers to an invisible case.It is always hypothetical and theoretical.An exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church must exist.The exception, he or she , must be a concrete, real person, someone known.Yet for Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Schneider, LG 16 would be an exception to the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors, EENS etc.This is also the mistake of the liberals.

 

If there is an apple in a box of oranges the apple is an exception since it is different but also because it exists in that box.If it was not there it would not be an exception.Similarly Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) in Vatican Council II cannot be an exception to 16th century EENS. Since it refers to an invisible case.It is always hypothetical and theoretical.An exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church must exist.The exception, he or she , must be a concrete, real person, someone known.Yet for Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Schneider, LG 16 would be an exception to the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors, EENS etc.This is also the mistake of the liberals. -Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Vigano must note that the popes and the CDF made a faith. It was a specific faith and not an ambiguous one.

 If Archbishop Carlo Vigano would change his perspective and look at LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc as referring to only theoretical and speculative cases, then there would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Tradition( EENS, Syllabus etc). He would also have to see that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, did not contradict Feeneyite EENS. The popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a mistake. It was a specific faith and not an ambiguous one.-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Vigano made a mistake, a common one

 Archbishop Carlo Vigano interpreted LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as referring to personally visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.So they were objective exceptions for him to the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic  for salvation.So Vatican Council II emerged schismatic for him.The fault lies with him, his view of Vatican Council II.

LG 8, LG 16 etc are always theoretical and speculative only. There is nothing in the Council-text  to contradict the Athanasius Creed, EENS etc. 

Archbishop Vigano made a mistake, a common one. -Lionel Andrades

La Madonna a Medjugorje vuole una Preghiera Eucaristica: la Sua Gloria s...

You don't need the SSPX approach any more since without the false premise you can affirm Tradition and also Vatican Council II. You don't need to reject Vatican Council II.This was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

 You don't need the SSPX approach any more since without the false premise you can affirm Tradition and also Vatican Council II. You don't need to reject Vatican Council II.This was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

I affirm the Syllabus of Errors ( Feeneyite), EENS ( Feeneyite) and the Athanasius Creed( all need the Catholic faith for salvation) along with hypothetical LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II. So there is nothing in the Council, for me, to contradict 16th century exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. 

So when it is said that it is obligatory to accept Vatican Council II, of course I accept it and would encourage all to say that they accept the Council, but only interpret it as I do, with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

We must understand that Bishop Robert Barron is not a radical traditionalist only because he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, EENS and other Magisterial documents

 

We must understand that Bishop Robert Barron is not a radical traditionalist only because he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, EENS and other Magisterial documents. -Lionel Andrades

Guarita da una grave paraplegia alle gambe durante l'Apparizione a Medju...