Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar., Murray, Cushing and the others at Vatican Council II(1965) chose 'the false premise' , the 'right hand side column' and 'the red being an exception to the blue'. This was the original mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. -Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 27, 2021
So what if Rahner, Ratzinger and Congar were there? So what if Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Cushing and John Courtney Murray were present at Vatican Council II. What has J. Maritain to do with Vatican Council II today ?Nothing. So why mention them?
So what if Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Cushing and John Courtney Murray were present at Vatican Council II. The Council interpreted with LG 8, LG 16 etc refers to only hypothetical and theoretical cases. So they are not exceptions to Tradition.
In reality there are no practical exceptions to EENS. There are none mentioned in the Council-text.
So what if Rahner, Ratzinger and Congar were there?
What has J. Maritain to do with Vatican Council II today ?Nothing. So why mention them?- Lionel Andrades
SATURDAY, JULY 18, 2020
Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Sean Winters use the same false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Roberto dei Mattei in his writings mentions Congar,Rahner and other liberals who were present at Vatican Council II. Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter will also mention Rahner, Congar,Ratzinger and others who were responsible for Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition.
Both of them do not want to say that even though Congar, Rahner and Ratzinger were active at Vatican Council II, the break with Tradition is caused by a false premise . So without the false premise there is no rupture with Tradition even if Cushing, Murray and Bea were there.
It must be noted that even if Congar and Rahner were present at Vatican Council II they could not make the change, a break with Tradition, out of thin air. They had to produce a theology which would be accepted also by the conservatives. It had to get pass Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The acceptable theology was proposed before Vatican Council II. It was approved by Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre and the others, when the false premise was used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).With LOHO came the New Theology.
Pope John XXIII approved it and so did Pope Paul VI.There was not a single person who mentioned the precise cause for the 'development of doctrine and dogma' and the break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Athanasius Creed.
All they could say that X,Y and Z were there and so this was expected.
A New Theology was created in 1949 by confusing what was invisible( baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)) as being visible.Then it was postulated that these were exceptions to EENS.This was the New Theology which was also approved by Archbishop Lefebvre.It said outside the Church there is salvation.
I refer to the New Theology also as Lefebvrist theology, or Cushingism. Archbishop Richard Cushing to whom LOHO was addressed, approved the irrationality, with reference to BOD, BOB and I.I and EENS.
In principle the theology of Vatican Council II is Cushingite.Why had they to mention Unitatis Redintigratio( Decree on Ecumenism) 3 and the reference to being saved in imperfect communion with the Church ? How can invisible cases of being saved in imperfect communion with the Church which could only be known to God, be relevant to EENS or the old ecumenism ?
It was not relevant yet Ratzinger,Rahner, Congar, Murray and Bea among others, made it relevant at Vatican Council II.They assumed there were personally known(visible) Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church. So they created visible exceptions ?
Similarly why mention LG 8, GS 22 etc ? They are all theoretical and hypothetical cases and not exceptions to EENS.
Why does Ad Gentes 7 , which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, mention invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ? Why ? Since they were visible exceptions to EENS for some of the Council Fathers. In principle they accepted an error approved by the popes Pius XII and John XXIII.
Now we know, 55 years later, that Vatican Council II can only be a break with Tradition with the New Theology, Lefebvrist theology, Cushingite theology.
So we know what precisely causes the hermeneutic of rupture. We have found out the missing link. The secret is out.
So what if we do not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? What if there are orthodox passages which support EENS and there are hypothetical passages which do not contradict EENS or the orthodox passages of Vatican Council II ?
Then there is no rupture with EENS or the Athanasius Creed in Vatican Council II. None.
So even if Congar, Rahner and Ratzinger were present at the Council, Vatican Council II is orthodox and traditional. It supports exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church when the false premise is avoided. With the dogma EENS having no exceptions we are back to the old ecclesiology, the old ecumenism, traditional mission and the theological possibility to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation.
We undo the bad work of the liberals and Lefebvrists.
So when you continue to read that X,Y and Z were present at Vatican Council II, tell the writer to forget all that. It is meaningless.Since the Council can be interpreted without the false premise and there is no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
The Lefebvrists and liberals who know that there really is no rupture with Tradition in Vatican Council II and yet continue with the ruse, could be doing so for personal and practical reasons e.g to preserve their career, get donations etc.
I once briefly met Roberto dei Mattei at his office in Rome which seems to be part of a church or along side a church.If Mattei interprets Vatican Council II without the false premise and so has to affirm Feeneyite EENS, he could be asked by the Vicariate in Rome and the Vatican, to vacate.They may also not allow him to attend Mass in Latin at the FSSP church in Rome.
So he needs the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
Similarly Fr.John Zuhlsdorf told Michael Sean Winters that he did not affirm Feeneyite EENS.So he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise like Winters.He is allowed to be incardinated in the USA in the diocese of Madison.He is also allowed to offer Mass in Latin at the FSSP church in Rome, along with the other traditionalists who reject Tradition by using the false premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including the Creeds.
This could be the reason why the Federational International Una Voce(FIUV) and the Latin Mass Societies did not issue a statement when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) Secretaries, asked the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, to interpret invincible ignorance(Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848) as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
The politically correct FIUV interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition using the common error.It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Sean Winters.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 17, 2020
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2020
All the bishops present at Bari interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the false premise, inference and conclusion. They need to issue a clarification and correct the confusion
Presently heresy is the norm in the Catholic Church.The popes, cardinals and bishops use an irrational premise, inference and conclusion to make magisterial documents non magisterial and heretical.The meaning of the teachings are changed.
ALL THE BISHOPS AT BARI INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AND MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS WITH THE FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION.THEY NEED TO ISSUE A CLARIFICATION AND CORRECT THE CONFUSION.
1.'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' ' (Nicene Creed) changes to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms ( desire, blood and ignorance) for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.' They are all physically visible and so they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church' (Apostles Creed) is understood to mean that the Holy Spirit now teaches the Church that outside the Church there is known salvation(baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I):These are personally known and physically visible cases of non Catholics saved with the BOD, BOB and I.I.They are saved without faith and baptism (AG 7) in the Catholic Church.
3. The Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation is rejected.Since it is assumed that there are exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I .This is an error. Since BOD, BOB and I.I are only hypothetical and speculative cases. They exist only in our human mind.They can be known only to God.So since they are no known and visible for us human beings how can they be exceptions to EENS ? The Holy Office(CDF) in 1949 made a mistake and Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center were correct.
4.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was defined by three Church Councils in the extraordinary magisterium. Pope Pius XII called it an 'infallible teaching'. Yet BOD, BOB and I.I were projected as exceptions to EENS by Vatican Council II. This was heretical and it was accepted by the popes from Paul VI to Francis. They also excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for not accepting this lie.They wanted him to accept a false version of Vatican Council II and did not tell him that the Council could be interpreted rationally and it would be traditional for him.
These four points refer to first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
Then there is heresy in the ordinary magisterium too.
1.Vatican Council II's personally unknown cases LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are projected as known non Catholics saved outside the Church. They are assumed to contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27 Q) which have been made obsolete.
This is heretical and that too with the use of an irrational premise i.e invisible people are visible, invisible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are visible exceptions to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology).
2.The second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradicts the first part which supports traditional EENS. The second part of the LOHO assumes unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to the traditional exclusivist interpretation of EENS.This is irrational and heretical.LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II.It was placed in the Denzinger.Cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn then referenced it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.The popes, cardinals and bishops accept LOHO with its irrationality and heresy.
LOHO contradicts the Athanasius Creed, Catechism of Pope Pius X( 24 Q, 27Q) and EENS ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).
3.The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) does not directly state that non Catholics are outside the Church as does the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q, 27 Q). Since cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn assumed BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.They were visible people saved outside the Church in the present times, for them.
Since the Catechism of the Catholic Church was written assuming there were exceptions to EENS, CCC 846 states that all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.This accomodates 'known' exceptions to EENS. They would have to be personally known to be exceptions. Invisible people cannot be exceptions. This is all irrational. It also rejects the traditional strict interpretation of the EENS according to the missionaries in the 1920's.
4.The theological papers of the International Theological Commission are not magisterial.They have an objective mistake in two of them. They are Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation of Infants who Die Without being Baptized.Here are the errors.
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).( Lionel : But this is a reference by Pope Pius XII to hypothetical and invisible cases.This is something obvious.It is common sense.) The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. (So he means hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS) The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).(O.K,Hypothetically but what has this to do with EENS ? The Letter made an irrational inference too.) In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870).(Again he is referring to an unknown person so what is this mentioned with reference to EENS? Why? Since his new theology is Cushingite.) But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).-Christianity and the World Religions,ITC (1997)
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.(Since he is a Cushingite he interprets Lumen Gentium 14 as referring to known people saved outside the Church and so there are known people saved in invincible ignorance.So only those who know and are not in ignorance need to enter the Church for him and not all non Catholics in general. This is one of the heights of Cushingism) The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII,( The teaching of Pope Pius XII on EENS with known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Unknown cases are known exceptions. This is Cushingism again.) but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.(Vaguely supporting Cushingism)
68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14).(The catechumen who is saved with implicit or explicit desire is a hypothetical case. So why is it mentioned here ? Since it is not a hypothetical case for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j. They are Cushingites). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God.(He does not say that they are all oriented to Hell. Since that would be the traditional Feeneyite theology with unknown cases not known exceptions to traditional EENS) In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16). (Being a Cushingite,who interprets invisible cases as being physically visible, he is saying here that the exceptions are the ordinary means of salvation. He also contradicts the latter part of his Cushingite Redemptoris Missio)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/05/this-is-scandal.html
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: (it was a dogma defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Magisterium and not an adage)“salus extra ecclesiam non est”, (it was always extra ecclesiam nulla salus) the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.(He is referring to his Cushingite interpretation. His 'nuanced version' of course is not the traditional exclusivist understanding of salvation) The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood.(This is traditional Feeneyite theology which he will contradict in the next line by assuming unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation) On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord” (In other words they are exceptions to EENS for the ITC and so there is no more an exclusive interpretation.This is his familiar Cushingite theology) -
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Other examples of irrationality and heresy could be cited. This is schism with the popes over the centuries on EENS, the Creeds and Catechisms and other magisterial documents.-Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
Archbishops Giacomo Morandi and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia , Secretaries of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Mons Marco Gnarvi, Diocesan Secretary for the Office of Inter religious Dialogue and Ecumenism, Rome Vicariate are in schism with the popes over the centuries . They use an irrational premise, inference and conclusion to create this schism.With this irrationality they have also changed the understanding of the Creeds and Catechism and this is heresy.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/archbishops-giacomo-morandi-and.html
FEBRUARY 23, 2020
Poor scholarship at PISAI
The Pontifical Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational premise, inference and conclusion to create a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and the work of the Missionaries of Africa in Tunisia in 1926 when PISAI was founded.
So there is poor scholarship at PISAI.
At PISAI they could choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and then there would be no rupture with the missionaries of the past.
Instead PISAI interprets the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries in Tunisia in 1926.This is poor scholarship.
-Lionel Andrades
DIALOGUE
The course of History of Muslim-Christian Dialogue forms an essential part of the programme of study at PISAI. The historical path taken in this dialogue is based on a study of fundamental documents and important figures. On occasions, certain of the Institute’s guests are invited to share with the students aspects of their personal experience in the field of dialogue. In alternate years, all students have the possibility of visiting the Grand Mosque of Rome and being received there by the Director of the Islamic Cultural Centre or the Imam and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and received by its President or its General Secretary. https://en.pisai.it/academics/dialogue/
FEBRUARY 22, 2020
Italian Government finances Alberto Melloni's Bologna School with a million euros annually : it uses a false premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/t.html
FEBRUARY 22, 2020
Mons. Marco Gnarvi at the Vicariate, Rome does not use the rational model to interpret Vatican Council II but chooses the irrational version.He is the Parish Priest at the church Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome. In inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism he uses the false premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II. This is a fake version. It's use is unethical.He projects Vatican Council II without the rational interpretation of the Council.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/mons-marco-gnarvi-at-vicariate-rome-he.html
FEBRUARY 22, 2020
Croatian Government which opposes Freemasonry still officially interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion instead of the rational option
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/croatian-government-which-opposes.html
FEBRUARY 22, 2020
Andrea Torneilli and the Vatican Press Office by now know that they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational model and not the rational one.Pope Francis is probably informed and he must be saying that that we cannot go back to Tradition and the past and yet we cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. We cannot irrationally interpret the Creeds and Catechism. There cannot be a false profession of faith( Professio Fidei).
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/andrea-torneillli-and-vatican-press.html
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Cardinal Ratzinger's Professio Fidei is based upon the use of the irrational premise,inference and conclusion in the interpretation of magisterial documents including Vatican Council
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/cardinal-ratzingers-professio-fidei-is.html
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Fr.Hunwicke,Brother Alex Bugnolo,Louie Verrecchio and Ann Barnhardt interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise, inference and conclusion to contradict the Athanasius Creed on outside the Church there is no salvation
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/frhunwickebrother-alex-bugnololouie.html
FEBRUARY 13, 2020
Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn interpreted Vatican Council II with the irrational premise, inference and conclusion and then put together the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994).Though the Catechism is Cushingie for them we can interpret it with Feeneyism i.e the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/cardinal-ratzinger-and-cardinal.html
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
50 years of Vatican Council II - drama is over : the Council, EENS, Creeds, Catechisms and BOD, BOB and I.I can be interpreted rationally
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/50-years-of-vatican-council-ii-drama-is.html
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Michael Sean Winters, Massimo Faggioli, John Allen jr and Joshua McElwee agree that even though Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Richard Cushing and Joseph Ratzinger were there at Vatican Council II. the Council can be interpreted with the rational premise, inference and conclusion. Then it will be in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, an ecumenism of return and 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), with no known exceptions. None of them are disputing this.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/michael-sean-winters-massimo-faggioli.html
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
It is not orthodoxy when Roberto dei Mattei interprets the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with a fake premise, inference and conclusion to create a rupture with 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). For me EENS has no exceptions. For him BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/incomplete-it-is-not-orthodoxy-when.html
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
Rome Life Forum 2020 speakers interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion to create a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/rome-life-forum-2020-speakers-interpret_11.html
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
All the speakers at the Rome Forum 2020 need to interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms, EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion to create a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/all-speakers-at-rome-forum-2020-need-to.html
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
Rome Life Forum 2020 speakers use an irrational premise, inference and conclusion to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) to create a rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Catechism of Pope Pius X etc). https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/rome-life-forum-2020-speakers-use.html
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
Bishop Donald Sanborn, Bishop Daniel Dolan , Fr. Anthony Cekada and Michael and Peter Dimond interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X with an irrational premise and conclusion : they make the same mistake with Vatican Council II. https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/bishop-donald-sanborn-bishop-daniel.html
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
Rome Life Forum 2020 speakers interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise, inference and conclusion to create a false rupture with Tradition, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc. https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/rome-life-forum-2020-speakers-interpret.html
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
Lepanto Foundation,Correspondenza Romano, Radici Cristiane,RadioRomalibera of Roberto dei Mattei do not rationally interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms, EENS, BOD, BOB and I.I and the Catechism of Pope Pius X : an irrational premise, inference and conclusion is used. https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/lepanto-foundationcorrespondenza-romano.html
FEBRUARY 6, 2020
All the USCCB-approved books on Vatican Council II are based upon this model https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/all-usccb-approved-books-on-vatican.html
FEBRUARY 6, 2020
Ignatius Press- approved books follow this model
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/ignatius-press-approved-books-follow.html
FEBRUARY 6, 2020
Angelus Press-approved books also follow this model https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/angelus-press-approved-books-also.html
EBRUARY 6, 2020St.John Lateran University library for research on Vatican Council II follows this model : all the books on Vatican Council II are written with a false premise https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/stjohn-lateran-university-library-for.html
___________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment