Saturday, July 31, 2021
Cardinals and bishops use a false premise, which is unethical, and no one checks them.This issue is public and dishonest. It is a secular issue in this sense.But there is no organization or system to show the Italian politicians like Matteo Salvini how interpreting Vatican Council II rationally is in their political interest and that of the Catholics of Italy
There is no organisation in the Catholic Church which calls attention to
specific cases when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the false premise
and not the rational premise, which is always an option.For example, in
Washington D.C why should Archbishop
Wilton Gregory and Jesuit Georgetown University, interpret Vatican Council II
with a false premise ? Why should they confuse what is invisible as being
visible and then consider it Catholic ?
Why are there no restrictions for priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass
but interpret Vatican Council II irrationally ? This is unethical in a public
and secular sense.
Similarly Cardinal Cupich and Mundelein seminary,Chicago, should interpret Vatican Council II rationally. They could interpret the
Council rationally and then go back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the
Catholic Church.They should be proclaiming that outside the Catholic Church
there is no salvation instead of there is salvation.
We now know, but they do not seem to know, that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,
NA 2, GS 22 etc, are invisible cases. So they cannot be visible examples of
salvation outside the Church.They cannot be exceptions to the Athanasius Creed
which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.
This would be obvious for most people. But cardinals and bishops use a false premise, which is unethical, and no one checks them.This issue is public and dishonest. It is a secular issue in this sense.But there is no organization or system to show the Italian politicians like Matteo Salvini how interpreting Vatican Council II rationally is in their political interest and that of the Catholics of Italy.-Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake when he used the false premise to interpret the Councils and so also the Creeds and Catechisms
JULY 31, 2021
The SSPX is not proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics in the USA, Italy etc and neither interpreting Vatican Council II with the rational premise instead of the irrational premise : Don Pietro Leone and Fr. Davide Pagliarani remain politically correct with the Left and Traditionlis Custode
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-sspx-is-notproclaiming-social-reign.html
The SSPX is not proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics in the USA, Italy etc and neither interpreting Vatican Council II with the rational premise instead of the irrational premise : Don Pietro Leone and Fr. Davide Pagliarani remain politically correct with the Left and Traditionlis Custode
THE SSPX IS NOT
PROCLAIMING THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING IN ALL POLITICS IN THE USA,
ITALY ETC AND NEITHER INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE
INSTEAD OF THE IRRATIONAL PREMISE : DON PIETRO LEONE AND FR. DAVIDE PAGLIARANI REMAIN POLITCALLY CORRECT WITH THE LEFT AND TRADITIONIS CUSTODE.
The web blog Rorate Caeili knows that Vatican
Council II can be interpreted without the false premise even though this was
the mistake of the Council Fathers in 1965. It was also the error in reasoning,
of Pope Pius XII and the cardinals in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office
was issued.
Many years back a reader of Rorate Caeili
described the blog as ‘spineless’ in an e-mail to me.Since the owner of the
web-blog had posted some comments of mine showing how the International
Theological Comission, had made an error in two documents, when it used the
false premise to interpet the LOHO and Vatican Council II. The rabbi at the
Angelicum had phoned up Rorate Caeili, the editor announced it on the blog. He
was concerned and immediately removed the comments.
It must be noted that at the Angelicum University
they interpret Unitatis Redintigratio 3 as referring to known Christians in the
present times, saved outside the Church. So UR is projected as a practical
exception to the dogma EENS and the past ecumenism of return.
It is not said that Pope Paul VI could have
interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise, if he wanted to, and
the Council would not be rupture with Tradition.
The old propaganda of Don Pietro Leone is
gurgitated on Rorate Caeili. Leone has spent most of of his life interpreting
Vatican Council II with the error and now cannot change to a rational option,
which could be costly for him and Rorate Caeli.
So they will put the blame on Vatican Council II
while not choosing to affirm the Faith on the exclusivist
ecclesiology of the Church and the salvation-dogma.
There is not a single report on Rorate Caeili
which states that there are two interpretations of the Council and that
Traditionis Custode was issued with the irrational interpretation of the
Council, like that of Don Pietro Leone.It was the same with the Abu Dhabi statement and
Amoris Laeitia.Pope Francis cited Vatican Council II. Cardinal Hummes of Brazil, cited Vatican Council II for the innovation at
the Amazon Synod and criticized the SSPX for not accepting the Council ( interpreted
with the false premise to produce a false rupture with Catholic Tradition).
The Latin Mass ( not Traditional Latin Mass) will
be permitted in Britain since the Latin Mass Societies like the liberals, 1) will
interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone ( by confusing what is
invisible as being visible and then projecting practical exceptions to
Tradition) and 2) they will not interpret the Council like Lionel Andrades( who affirms the orthodox passages in the
Council-text and does not project passages which refer to hypothetical cases as
being practical exceptions to Tradition).
This was the political approach of Fr. Davide
Pagliarani in his recent statement on Traditionis Custode. He prudently did not
say that the SSPX affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political
legislation and politics in Italy, USA etc. He also did not say that they
support Vatican Council II with the rational premise, and so the Council would
not be a rupture with the traditional proclamation of the Social Reign and the
exclusivista interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He could not say it. Since Archbishop Lefebvre
made a mistake when he used the false premise to interpret the Councils and so
also the Creeds and Catechisms. The Profession of Faith of Fr. Pagliarani and
the cardinals and bishops at the Novus Ordo Mass, would be diferent from
mine.-Lionel Andrades
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is
rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston.
In the their recent interview Sammons cited the Bible to show that Jesus and the Catholic Church, membership in the Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation.
For example, on the Road to Damascus , Jesus says, “Saul, Saul,
why do you persecute me ?” Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus identified
with the Church, the Catholic Church.This is the Church which has given us the
Bible, from which Sammon was quoting.
In Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) it is written that all need
faith and baptism for salvation. The word All is there.With the rational
interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc, being hypothetical and invisible in the present times(2021) cannot
be practical exceptions to AG 7 or outside the Church there is no salvation(CCC
846).There are not practical exceptions to the word 'all'.
The baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), being only
speculative and not formally known examples of salvations. They never were
practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Ignatius
of Loyola and the Jesuits of his time.
So this is a Vatican Council II with 1 ) LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,
NA 2, GS 22 etc invisible and hypothetical only ( as I see it) and then 2) there is
the common interpretation with LG 8, LG 14 , UR 3 etc seen as physically
visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church,
without faith and baptism.
Sammons and Weston have to show that when popes and cardinals
choose the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II it cannot be
Magisterial. The Holy Spirit will not call something invisible as being
visible and then create a New Theology based upon this error in observation. An
empirical error of observation.
Yet the New Evangelisation and New Ecumenism is based upon this
error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So there is a Vatican Council II in harmony with outside the
Church there is no salvation and there is a Vatican Council II which is a
rupture with Tradition in general and in partcular the salvation-dogma.
In Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis was
interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc being
physically visible and personally known cases in 1965-2021.This is a major mistake.This is
irrational.It is deceptive. If any one was saved as such it would only be known
to God.The norm for salvation in the Catholic Church has always been faith and
the baptism of water.The norm is not LG 8,LG 16 etc.The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not the norm.
There is no Extraordinary Way of Salvation known to us
practically. If there were exceptions for the norm it would only be known to
God.Here SSPX priests make a mistake
when they refer to the Extraordinary Way of salvation.This was the mistake in
the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that not every one needs to be a
formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation and cites BOD and I.I as
practical exceptions.
So when we confuse what is theoretical as being practical, it
becomes irrational. So the false premise then creates a non traditional
conclusion, which is not Magisterial, even if it is supported by the popes.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and the popes and bishops must choose the rational option.We then go back to traditional mission-doctrines.We read Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium, the entire text,differently. The red ( passages which refer to the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance) are not exceptions to the blue ( passages which support orthodoxy). –Lionel Andrades
JULY 30, 2021
In John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/in-john-henry-westons-interview-of-eric.html
JULY 29, 2021
Friday, July 30, 2021
In John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
In John Henry Weston’s interview of Eric Sammons on outside the
Church there is no salvation there is no mention of Traditionis Custode and its
direct link to the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (EENS).
They have not discussed how there are two interpretations of
Vatican Council II and how Traditional Custode is referring to the
irrtational one.
Pope Benedict also wanted
the Society of St. Pius X and the traditionalists to interpret Vatican Council II with the
irrational premise instead of the rational premise, inference and traditional
conclusion.With the false premise there is a rupture with EENS. Without the rational premise there is no
rupture but a continuity with Tradition.
There is Decree of Prohbitions placed against the
traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, NH. USA by the Diocese of
Manchester and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.They
want the SBC to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 847-848
Invincible ignorance ) with fake premise and so create a rupture with
traditional outside the Church there is no salvation.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Fr. Davide Pagaliarani,did not
intervene or comment on this doctrinal issue.Since they interpret Vatican
Council II and EENS with a false premise and so they create a rupture with EENS
according to the missionaries of the 16th century, at the Traditional Latin
Mass.
These are all points which were not talked about in the
interview and the comments on the book written by Eric Sammons.
In the interview they had to show that the liturgy is not
responsible for the break with outside the Church there is no salvation and
there is a general misunderstanding about the Latin Mass.
Even at Mass in the vernacular if Vatican Council II is
interpreted rationally, there is no rupture with the
Catechism of the Catholic Church(24Q,27Q) and the
dogma outside the
Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 30, 2021
Leaders of Prayer groups in the parish interpret the Creeds,Catechisms and Vatican Council II irrationally : it was the same when the Latin Mass was available in the parish
LEADERS OF PRAYER GROUPS IN THE PARISH INTERPRET THE
CREEDS, CATECHISMS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY : IT WAS THE SAME WHEN
THE LATIN MASS WAS AVAILABLE IN THE PARISH.
In my parish,Santa Maria di Nazareth,Boccea,Rome, leaders of prayer groups deny
the Catholic Faith when they interpret the Creeds, Catechisms and Vatican
Council II irrationally and are still given the Eucharist.The use of the false
premise is common and un-noticed.
Maria is an Italian teacher in a college and assists with the Padre Pio Prayer
Group of the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome.She
organised a pilgrimage a few years back to San Giovanni Rotondo and I
accompanied them.
Massimo leads the rosary at the morning weekly Mass in Italian.Many years back
I would attend the Latin Mass in this parish but now it is prohibited.
Ennio has been a catechist and often leads the prayers and processions.
Giorgio is an
active and good catechist with whom young people seem comfortable.
But in general the parishioners employ a false premise, inference and conclusion to
interpret Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church. They do not use a
rational premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II etc.
This would produce a traditional conclusion and would have a continuity with
the past.
So their interpretation of the Creeds with the false premise is first class
heresy. It is schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries.
When the Creeds are rejected or their original meaning changed, it is a mortal
sin of faith.There is the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation and correcting
the error in public.The faith needs to be affirm on these points in public.
It is difficult for the lay parishioners to do this when the parish priests do
not do the same.
FAKE PREMISE OF CATHOLIC PRAYER GROUPS
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc
in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF CATHOLIC PRAYER GROUPS
They are objective examples of salvation outside the
Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION CATHOLIC PRAYER GROUPS
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside
the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.smnazaret.it/info/contattataci/
Thursday, July 29, 2021
Terrance Berris, a retired Catholic lawyer in Wisconsin, USA depends upon a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so create a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.He does not deny this on his blog The Badger Catholic. He is supported by Fr. John Kartje, the former Rector of Mundalein Seminary, Chicago
Like the bishops and priests of the Society of
St. Pius X (SSPX),Terrance Berris, a retired Catholic lawyer in Wisconsin, USA
depends upon a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so create a
rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and
the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.He does not deny this on his blog The
Badger Catholic.
He is supported by Fr. John Kartje, the former Rector of Mundalein Seminary, Chicago and a correspondent of the Badger Catholic.
Berris
uses a false premise to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in
Vatican Council II. For him these are physically invisible cases in 1965-2021 which he
projects as physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so
they become for him, practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the past
ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
For me
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not a rupture with Tradition
(EENS etc) but for him they are.So to support his irrational use of the false
premise to make the Council a break with Tradition, he cites the SSPX U.S
website Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine
Just imagine it! Liberals from Chicago and Mundelein seminary need the SSPX for support with the New Theology. They both use, the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger, which has its
foundation on the fake premise.
Terrance Berris and I are in the
same Catholic Church but our Profession of Faith would be different.Since our
premises are different the conclusions too would have to be different.
With the false premise, he the SSPX
and Fr. Kartje are modernists. I am not.
Berris is implying that non
Catholics who are dead and are now in Heaven and also visible on earth to be
exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.How can people be in two places at
the same time?
How can he see people in Heaven and
also on earth for them to be exceptions for the traditional ecclesiocentrism of
the Church.
Yet this is also the reasoning of
other Catholic lawyers e.g John Salza, Chris Ferrara, Christine Niles. When
Ferrara wrote his book EWTN a Network Gone Wrong he did not know that he and the EWTN Management and apologists, were
interpreting Vatican Council II and EENS, with a fake premise which was
officially approved by the popes .
When Christine Niles on the M’ced
Up program for Church Militant TV did a program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
she made the same error when she quoted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and
projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as
being known exceptions to the dogma EENS according to Cantate Domino, Council
of Florence which she quoted on that program.Neither did she or Charles
Coulombe, whom she interviewed on that program say that Vatican Council II and
EENS could be interpreted with the rational premise and so there would be no
rupture with Catholic Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).-Lionel Andrades
http://badgercatholic.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-nadir-of-american-catholicism.html#comment-form
https://usml.edu/academic-affairs/
All the pontifical universities are not interpreting Vatican Council II with the rational premise and neither is Joseph Shaw
Joseph Shaw in Does Traditionis Custodes contradict the documents of Vatican
II? (Life site news) refers to Sacrosanctum Concilium but avoids the real issue
with Vatican Council II,the Latin Mass
and the traditionalists.This was known to Pope Benedict and the same
policy is being followed by Pope Francis.
The
Latin Mass is only permitted presently for those priests who interpret the
Council with a false premise and so
create a rupture with Tradition (Athanasius Creed etc). For example, in Britain.
The
priests who accept Vatican Council II and interpret it with a rational premise
, which does not contradict Tradition( Athanasius Creed) will not be given
permission, even though they accept the Council.Since they would be affirming
Feeneyite EENS.
Archbishop
Thomas Gullickson avoids the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican
Council II, EENS and other Magisterial documents.There is no rupture with
Tradition for him.So he had appealed to the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II,
as he does.
On
the other hand the English bishops and priests interpret the Council with the
false premise, so they are permitted by Cardinal Vince Nicols to offer the Latin Mass. The ADL does not
object.
Dr.Joseph
Shaw a professor of philosophy interprets Vatican Council II with the false
premise and teaches it at the Benedictine St.Benet Hall, Oxford.
But
Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, former Dean of Theology and Rector of the Benedictine
Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome, does not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, as did
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar and Kung.
It is
the same with Una Voce International and the Latin Mass Societies in
Britain.They depend upon the fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a
break with Tradition since this is approved by the Left.
With
the use of the fake premise there are exceptions created in Vatican Council II
for EENS. So there is a new version of EENS. It is EENS with exceptions. This
is also the understanding of John Henry Weston and Eric Sammons and Steve
Skojec who has left 1Peter5.
So with
the false premise, like the Left, the traditionalist and conservative
Catholics, support ‘ a theology of religions’.
This
is the theology at the ecumenical and inter religious meetings for the Catholic
Bishops Conference in Britain.
There
was no 'theology of religious pluralism' at the time of St. Benedict,St.
Ignatius of Loyola, St.Dominic Guzman. They all interpreted EENS without the
fake premise, of the correspondents of Life Site News,like Joseph Shaw.But today
in all the educational institutions of the Benedictines, Jesuits and Dominicans
this is the norm.All the pontifical universities are not interpreting Vatican
Council II with the rational premise and neither is Joseph Shaw.-Lionel Andrades
Pope Francis is not magisterial on Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode: Mundalein seminary and Bishop Robert Barron must acknowledge the error
The Mundalein seminary, Chicago interprets Vatican Council with the false premise instead of the rational
option and there is no comment from them or Bishop Robert Barron and the apologists
at Word of Fire.
According to Vatican Council II, Rahm Emmanuel the former Mayor
of Chicago and Biden’s Ambassador to Japan, is oriented to Hell without faith
and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Council says all need faith
and baptism for salvation (AG 7).He does not have it.Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church n.846 under the sub title Outside the Church no salvation.
With hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc in Vatican Council II there are no objective exceptions to AG 7 in
1965-2021.We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church.There are no
practical cases of being saved as referenced in LG 8,LG 14 etc.No one in Chicago knew
of someone saved outside the Church without faith and baptism .
There are no known cases of people in Heaven with the baptism
of desire(BOD) or invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2021.
Cardinal Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago appointed by Pope
Francis, like the faculty at Mundalein seminary continues to interpret Vatican
Council II with the false premise and so remains politically correct with the
Left.
But this is unethical and not Catholic.
I accept the BOD and I.I as always being hypothetical.The book,
Bread of Life, indicates that they were also hypothetical for Fr. Leonard
Feeney.
I do not have to reject BOD and I.I ( speculative always) to
affirm ‘the strict interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).BOD and
I.I can only be speculative and never objective for us human beings.So being theoretical it is compatible with EENS and the need for all to practically have faith and the baptism of water to avoid the fires of Hell.
So BOD and I.I never ever were an issue.The Letter of the Holy
Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) made it an issue by confusing what is invisible(BOD, I.I) as being visible.
Fr. Leonard Feeney’s excommunication was lifted without him
having to recant.The CDF knew that it had made a mistake.Since the Athanasius
Creed states, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that all need Catholic faith for
salvation.This was the Creed of the Catholic Church for centuries.
Cardinal Cupich and Mundalein seminary could acknowledge that Pope Francis is not Magisterial when he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode were issued with this error.So they cannot be Magisterial.The pope needs to correct the mistake.He has issued these documents based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, with a fake premise.Only in this way could a hermeneutic of rupture be created with Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).-Lionel Andrades
Wednesday, July 28, 2021
In Rome even the Novus Ordo Mass is banned for priests who accept Vatican Council II but do not interpret it with the irrational premise( red column )
In Rome even the Novus Ordo Mass is banned for priests who accept Vatican Council II but do not interpret it with the irrational premise( red column ) .
The Latin Mass is banned for priests who
accept Vatican Council II but interpret LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc
with a rational premise i.e LG 8 etc are references to physically invisible and visible cases
.They are hypothetical and theoretical only and not objective people known in
2021.
If the priests offering the Novus Ordo Mass supported the blue
column it means their ecclesiology is the same as the Traditional Latin Mass in
the 16th century. It is the red column which creates the hermeneutic
of rupture with Tradition. -Lionel Andrades
JULY 26, 2021
Both Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode were written with the false premise. There are 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.
JULY 18, 2021
There are 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.
JULY 13, 2021
The LA interpretation of Vatican Council II is not new in the Church since the original traditional premise of the Catholic Church is being used.
_____________________
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.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.
3.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).
4.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.
5.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.
6.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).
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE PIUS XII( This letter was an inter office correspondence between cardinals. However the liberals placed it in the Denzinger and it has been referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains an objective error when it assumes invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Upon this Letter is based the New Theology.) We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemnjudgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807). Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL.
___________________7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.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.
3.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).
4.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.
5.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.
6.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).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL.
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him...- Ad Gentes 7. Vatican Council II
10.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.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.
Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases.They are invisible in 2021. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic.
13 The bishops and the diocesan priests are in an irregular situation since they do not use the Lionel Andrades interpretation?
The Priestly Fraterniy of St. Peter (FSSP) for example, will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.This is being identfied here.It is being pointed out to.So we are back to the original premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the Catholic Church. I call it the LA interpretation to identify it.I am presently the only one who is using it with reference to Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.
14.Only the Catholic Church?
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon, for example, need an organisation or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
The Social Reign of Christ the King can be proclaimed based upon the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II.
The laity in Dijon, or any where else in the world, could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more be seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset.Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the Church.
Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
15.The Rite does not make a difference?
Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create the Amazon Rite and new rites, for the Mass.The ecclesiology of the Church will not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: - Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
Fake premise
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 AndradesPromoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.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 )E-mail: lionelandrades10@
1.’The red is an exception to the blue' for the both of them(Don Pietro Leone and Bishop Roland Minnerath). They both have chosen
2. 'the right hand side column.' Both of them are using
3. 'the false premise' instead of 'the rational premise'.
So they were both projecting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, when the real fault was their way of looking and interpreting the Council. I,(L.A) avoid their error and so the Council is not a rupture with Tradition for me.
’1.The red is an exception to the blue'
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL. 1
2.'the right hand side column.'
In the following two columns he chooses the false column and misleads Catholics.
LEFT HAND SIDE RIGHT HAND SIDE
implicit for us - explicit for us.hypothetical - known in reality.invisible - visible in the flesh.de jure ( in principle) - de facto ( known in fact).subjective - objective. 2
3.'the false premise' instead of 'the rational premise'.
.
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
1
Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
2We can choose from the left or right column in our interpretation of Vatican Council II. When Vatican Council refers to salvation in invincible ignorance(LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men(NA 2) etc would you interpret it with the left or right column ?
If you choose the column on the right Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches.There are exceptions known in 2018 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. It means those who have died on earth and who are saved are physically visible. Since they are visible and known they become exceptions to EENS.This is the inference.If you choose the column on the left, then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma EENS, nor Tradition on salvation for non Catholics and non Christians.We are back to the old understanding of outside the Church there is no salvation.Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the values of the irrational right hand side column and Pope Benedict does the same.If the right hand column is chosen then the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
In 2018 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, Neo Cathechumenal Way of Kiko Arguello, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement, all the religious communities(Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelities), the diocesan priests and the bishops and cardinals choose the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The priests and professors who teach at the pontifical and secular universities and seminaries in Rome, make the same mistake.
So wide spread is the error and there is no one discussing it .Neither over the years has Pope Benedict issued a correction and apology.-Lionel Andrades
10.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.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases.They are invisible in 2021. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic.
13 The bishops and the diocesan priests are in an irregular situation since they do not use the Lionel Andrades interpretation?
The Priestly Fraterniy of St. Peter (FSSP) for example, will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.This is being identfied here.It is being pointed out to.So we are back to the original premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the Catholic Church. I call it the LA interpretation to identify it.I am presently the only one who is using it with reference to Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.
14.Only the Catholic Church?
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon, for example, need an organisation or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
The Social Reign of Christ the King can be proclaimed based upon the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II.
The laity in Dijon, or any where else in the world, could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more be seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset.Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the Church.
Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
15.The Rite does not make a difference?
Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create the Amazon Rite and new rites, for the Mass.The ecclesiology of the Church will not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
Fake premise
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.
1.’The red is an exception to the blue' for the both of them(Don Pietro Leone and Bishop Roland Minnerath). They both have chosen
2. 'the right hand side column.' Both of them are using
3. 'the false premise' instead of 'the rational premise'.
So they were both projecting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, when the real fault was their way of looking and interpreting the Council. I,(L.A) avoid their error and so the Council is not a rupture with Tradition for me.
’1.The red is an exception to the blue'
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL. 1
2.'the right hand side column.'
.
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
1
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
We can choose from the left or right column in our interpretation of Vatican Council II. When Vatican Council refers to salvation in invincible ignorance(LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men(NA 2) etc would you interpret it with the left or right column ?
JANUARY 27, 2018
THE TWO COLUMNS
Pope Francis interprets the Creeds with a false premise, inference and conclusion. This was un precedented over the centuries.Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII and the following popes, interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with a false premise.Pope Paul VI and the following popes interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise.Now Pope Francis interprets the Creeds and Vatican Council Ii with the false premise and so creates a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition on ecumenism, traditional ecclesiocentic mission, liturgy with the old exclusivist ecclesiology and traditional ecclesiology.It's a different Catholic Church now.The whole Church is following him in the error, conservatives and liberals.Bishop Schneider, Maike Hickson and John Henry Weston continue to interpret LG 8 and UR 3 in Vatican Council II as exceptions to EENS. Bishop Bernard Fellay did this continously. He never corrected himself. He probably will go to the end of his life, with this error, like Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari.If the popes interpret the Creeds without the false premise, like me, they would be opposed by the Jewish Left.There would be persecution.Now there is support.The two popes do not affirm the Creeds to avoid a persecution of the Church. They have changed the faith-teachings of the Church.So the official Profession of Faith and Oath of Office for Cardinals, Bishops, Rectors, Superiors and Parish Priests are mere words supporting heresy and dissent.-Lionel Andrades
___________________________
_________________________
__________________________________________
___________________________
Posts
