I affirm the Athanasius Creed (Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally...)in the parish but the priests and many of the parishioners do not do the same.
I live in the parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea.It is a 20-minute drive from Rome's Battistini Metro Station.How can they offer/attend Holy Mass and not affirm the infallible teaching of the Athanasius Creed?
I affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally in the parish but the priests and most of the parishioners do not do so.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. In other words, they refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. They refer to physically visible people saved without faith and the baptism of water.Invisible and unknown people cannot be exceptions to the Creed. So with this irrationality they make the Athanasius Creed obsolete.
My interpretation of Vatican Council II is rational and traditional.It is not a break with the Creeds.
How can the priests and people offer/attend Holy Mass with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II etc ?
When the priests and people in the parish do not affirm the Athanasius Creed and Vatican Council II, do they no have to go for the Sacrament of Confession, end the scandal and correct themselves in public ?
For me the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only. I cannot meet or see someone saved as such.It is only God who can know if someone is saved with BOD and I.I. So there are no practical cases of BOD and I.I for me.There are also no practical exceptions to the past Magisterial ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
But with visible for them,BOD and I.I, the priests and catechists and others in the parish, reject the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
They change the interpretation of Vatican Council II.Since for them, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc contradict the dogma EENS. There are practical exceptions for them.
So they have rejected the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.
They have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed. It is " I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( so EENS is rejected)".
They have changed the meaning of the Apostles Creed. It is " I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,'which teaches the Catholic Church today that there is known salvation outside the Church and so the Creeds and Catechisms are obsolete in their old understanding".
They have changed the meaning of the First Commandment which now indicates for them that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation and so there is true worship in non Christian religions.
This is public heresy, scandal and schism and Holy Mass is offered/ attended, by all in the parish.
This scandal has to be rectified in public, before absolution is given in the Confessional. -Lionel Andrades
https://www.smnazaret.it/
MAY 28, 2021
Priests are expected to affirm the Athanasius Creed in the parish. Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades is not a rupture
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/priests-are-expected-to-affirm.html
Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ( Updated )
Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (Updated)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.
Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked? No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).
How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.
Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.
What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).
What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.
Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.
For the present two popes and the traditionalists the red is an exception to the blue. This is irrational.
What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?
Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.
Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.
Rational Premise
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
___________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment