Ralph Martin knows that if he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS rationally like me,he is no more on the Vatican's Council for the New Evangelization and will be removed from the faculty in Detroit : the New Evangelisation depends upon the error in the LOHO

 

In the video above Ralph Martin briefly mentions the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO)relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.LOHO cannot be Magisterial since it has made an objective mistake even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16).Invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance, LOHO assumes were visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). In other words, cases of being saved in invincible ignorance were physically visible for them to be practical exceptions to EENS.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.But where are these cases in 1949-2021.We don't know any one. Since if someone was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God. The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water(AG 7), it is extra ecclesiam nulla salus( John 3:5, MArk 16:16 etc).

LOHO also assumes that unknown cases of being saved with the baptism of desire are practical exceptions to EENS and so LOHO criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney. He did not accept this irrationality which produced a non traditional and heretical conclusion.

How can the Holy Spirit make this error? How can this Magisterial ? This is human error.

This was also the irrational reasoning of some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II(1965) and so we have LG 16.

Now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and EENS.In one interpretation LG 16 is an exception to EENS and in the other it is not and exception to EENS.

Ralph Martin, Fr. Mark Goring and Bishop Robert Barron interpret LG 16 as an exception to traditional EENS.I do not do so.So there is a Vatican Council II which has exceptions for EENS and a Vatican Council II, in which LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 etc are not practical exceptions for EENS.There is a Vatican Council II with no exceptions for EENS.

They interpret BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS and I do not do so.For me BOD and I.I refer to invisible and theoretical cases. So they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.So we have today an EENS with exceptions and an EENS without exceptions.

We also have two interpretations of the Creeds and Catechisms with Ralph Martin rejecting the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation) and I accepting it with there being no exceptions.

Ralph Martin is in harmony with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict but in a rupture with the past Feeneyite Magisterium, which did not interpret EENS with exceptions.

I am in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church; the past popes and saints on EENS, but in a rupture with the present two Cushingite popes, for whom Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.

Ralph Martin knows  that if he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS rationally like me,he is no more on the Vatican's Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization and will be removed from the faculty of the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit.His  evangelisation of course would have to be Feeneyite and ecclesiocentric if he interprets EENS and Vatican Council II with no exceptions.This would be the old evangelisation and not the New Evangelisation.It depends upon the error in the LOHO. -Lionel Andrades

BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Rational Premise

The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically invisible cases in 1949-2021

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.They are not examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

Rational Conclusion

They do not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.They do 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.

__________

VATICAN COUNCIL II

Fake premise

Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 14(Baptism of Desire), Lumen Gentium 16 (Invincible ignorance) 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.

Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, made an objective error.

VATICAN COUNCIL II

Rational Premise

 Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium  14 and Lumen Gentium 16  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.-L.A

______________________________________

Lionel Andrades

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

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com 

Tel:-