John Henry Weston, Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Matt violate the first Two Points of the following Five Points . So they interpret Vatican Council II like the liberals to create a break with Tradition.

 John Henry Weston, Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Matt violate the first Two Points of the following Five Points . So they interpret Vatican Council II like the liberals to create a break with Tradition.They are aware of this rupture with Tradition and in a vague and general way blame Vatican Council II.

They do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II by correcting their error as suggested by the Five Points. 

Once they do this, they will be persecuted by the Left.

Their attitude has always been why should we suffer financially and may be get closed down? So they don't affirm the Faith. It is the same with Bishop Arthanasius Schneider and others in the Lefebvrist group. -Lionel Andrades

___________________________

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

With the FIVE POINTS the Franciscans, Jesuits, Domincans, Carmelites and the other religious communities can change their religious formation of postulants and novices

 With the FIVE POINTS the Franciscans, Jesuits, Domincans, Carmelites and the other religious communities can change their religious formation of postulants and novices.- Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

Tables are turned. It is the SSPX today which can ask Pope Benedict to affirm Vatican Council II , without the false premise and let there be a hermeneutic of continuity with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed . This is a 'doctrinal'issue

 Tables are turned. It is the SSPX today which can ask Pope Benedict to affirm Vatican Council II , without the false premise and let there be a hermeneutic of continuity with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed . This is a 'doctrinal'issue. -Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

The Catholic Bishops Conference in Poland has to be informed that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II - with and without the false premise- and they should choose the rational one

 The Catholic Bishops Conference in Poland has to be informed that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II - with and without the false premise- and they should choose the rational one. - Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not asking Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise -and neither are Pope Benedict and Pope Francis

 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not asking Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise -and neither are Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.

Parish Priests, Rectors and Religious Superiors are not being asked to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS without the common false premise. -Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

Pope Benedict still does not admit that he wanted the SSPX to accept false doctrine in exchange for canonical recognition

 

https://www.churchmilitant.com/

Pope Benedict still does not admit that he wanted the SSPX to accept false doctrine in exchange for canonical recognition. 

Pope Benedict still does not admit that he interpreted the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance (I.I)  and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with a false premise and he wanted the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)to do the same. He wanted them to continue to use the same false premise  to interpret Vatican Council II and accept the non traditional conclusion. He wanted a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition in exchange for canonical recognition.The problem with the SSPX he said was 'doctrinal'.

When Pope Benedict interpreted the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with a false premise and accepted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office  he was rejecting traditional EENS, changing the meaning of the Nicene Creed, rejecting the Athanasius Creed, rejecting the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc. This is first class heresy and merits automatic excommunication. How can he offer Holy Mass.? - Lionel Andrades

  

 

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

Peter Seewald's new biography of Pope Benedict indicates how Pope Benedict was faking it in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus . He had switched from traditional Feeneyite exclusivist theology to the new Cushingite theology, which projected non existing people as being objective exceptions to Tradition

 Peter Seewald's new biography of Pope Benedict indicates how Pope Benedict was faking it in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus . He had switched from traditional Feeneyite exclusivist theology to the new Cushingite theology, which projected non existing people as being objective exceptions to Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 15, 2020

Peter Seewald missed out the most important point. Cardinal Ratzinger used a false premise to create a new Theology

 Peter Seewald missed out the most important point. Cardinal Ratzinger used a false premise to create a new Theology. - Lionel Andrades

December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new authoritative biography of Pope Benedict XVI written by Peter Seewald describes in detail the important role then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger played before and during the Second Vatican Council. His influence helped to bring about a revolutionary change of the Council's direction, tone, and topics.- Maike Hickson, New biography describes great influence of Joseph Ratzinger in the revolutionary upheaval of Vatican II

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-biography-describes-great-influence-of-joseph-ratzinger-in-the-revolutionary-upheaval-of-vatican-ii

With the knowledge of these FIVE POINTS 1 we can undo Cardinal Ratzinger's influence at Vatican Council II, and when he did not choose to interpret the Council after 1965, in continuity with Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

1

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

_______________________

 DECEMBER 13, 2020

If the Lefebvrists continue to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise, and not without it, the Council will continue to be a break with Tradition and this will not be the fault of Pope Benedict

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/if-lefebvrists-continue-to-interpret.html

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

When Ignatius publishes Pope Benedict's books its not just publishing the book of a 'progressivist'. It is unethical to publish the book of someone who has used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . He used a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition and de fide teachings of the Church. This is dishonest

 When Ignatius publishes Pope Benedict's books its not just publishing the book of a 'progressivist'. It is unethical to  publish the book of someone who has used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . He used a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition and de fide teachings of the Church. This is dishonest. - Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

How can a priest who follows Pope Benedict's false New Theology, based upon a false premise offer Holy Mass ? The New Theology creates a rupture with the past Magisterium on de fide teachings of the Church

 How can a priest who follows Pope Benedict's false New Theology, based upon a false premise offer Holy Mass ? The New Theology creates a rupture with the past Magisterium on de fide teachings of the Church. - Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise unlike the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. This is common sense.They cannot be practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed,the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc. Similarly for me the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are not exceptions to EENS. Where are the BOD, BOB and I.I cases in real life for them to be exceptions to EENS ?

 I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise unlike the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. This is common sense.They cannot be practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed,the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc. Similarly for me the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I)  are not exceptions to EENS.

Where are the BOD, BOB and I.I cases in real life for them to be exceptions to EENS ? - Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 15, 2020

Peter Seewald missed out the most important point. Cardinal Ratzinger used a false premise to create a new Theology

 Peter Seewald missed out the most important point. Cardinal Ratzinger used a false premise to create a new Theology. - Lionel Andrades

December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new authoritative biography of Pope Benedict XVI written by Peter Seewald describes in detail the important role then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger played before and during the Second Vatican Council. His influence helped to bring about a revolutionary change of the Council's direction, tone, and topics.- Maike Hickson, New biography describes great influence of Joseph Ratzinger in the revolutionary upheaval of Vatican II

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-biography-describes-great-influence-of-joseph-ratzinger-in-the-revolutionary-upheaval-of-vatican-ii

With the knowledge of these FIVE POINTS 1 we can undo Cardinal Ratzinger's influence at Vatican Council II, and when he did not choose to interpret the Council after 1965, in continuity with Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

1

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html

_______________________

 DECEMBER 13, 2020

If the Lefebvrists continue to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise, and not without it, the Council will continue to be a break with Tradition and this will not be the fault of Pope Benedict

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/if-lefebvrists-continue-to-interpret.html

DECEMBER 14, 2020

Five points that change our interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents

 

NEW INFORMATION

We  have new information.

1.The hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition depends upon the false premise and not Vatican Council II itself. This must be understood by all. It is  a common mistake.If you refer to the New Theology you also have to refer to the irrational premise.For example when Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible case it is a false premise.We know that LG 16 is really always hypothetical and invisible for all at all times.So when LG 16 refers to someone saved outside the Church( a false premise) it is made an objective exception to EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. But LG 16 is never objective for us human beings.It is objective only for God.

2.Irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal Catholic, if you use the false premise there is a rupture with Tradition. So the hermeneutic of rupture is not created by the liberals.This is  important to nore. It does not depend upon a person's philosophical or theological view. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS, but so did Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

3.If you are a liberal Catholic and do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge  a conservative or traditionalist Catholic. Since Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with the stict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is the false premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or non traditional.

4. If you are an SSPX  traditionalist and you do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, you emerge a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. Presently the SSPX and other traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so are Cushingites.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus had no exceptions. For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS.It was only with the false premise that BOD, BOB and I.I became exceptions to EENS for them.

5. So irrespective of the Rite of the Mass, Latin, Novus Ordo or Byzantine, if you interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise you are Traditional. The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of the Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q), the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and the Athanasius Creed.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/five-points-that-change-our.html