THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
LIBERAL AND A TRADITIONALIST : IMPORTANT TO KNOW FOR THE LATIN AND NOVUS ORDO
MASS
A traditionalist could be a Catholic who accepts the Syllabus of Errors of
Pope Pius IX ( with no exceptions), the Athanasius Creed ( all need the
Catholic faith with no known exceptions), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus( all need Catholic faith for salvation with the baptism of desire and
invincible ignorance not being objective exceptions to EENS).
A liberal is a Catholic who does not accept
these documents, with no exceptions,since he or she uses a false premise to
interpret Vatican Council II, BOD and I.I etc.So there is a hermeneutic of
rupture with Tradition for the liberal.
The SSPX and FSSP too would be liberals too
since they use a false premise to change the understanding of these Church
documents.
What they have in common with Cardinal Kasper,Cardinal
Ladaria, Archbishop Di Noia and Pope Francis is the use of the false premise
and not the rational premise to interpret Church documents.-Lionel Andrades
THE WHOLE DIOCESE OF DIJONE, WILL RETURN TO
TRADITION IN THIS WAY.
The Latin laity in Dijon,France could ask Bishop
Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests, who will offer the Latin and Novus
Ordo Mass, if they could interpret Vatican Council II with the rational
premise. In this way the whole diocese will return back to Tradition i.e extra
ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions, the Athanasius Creed with no
exceptions and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with no exceptions.
So 'the theology of religions' of the diocesan
priests and Bishop Minnerath will have no theological basis in Vatican Council
II.
If the bishop and diocesan priests continue to
interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise to create a New Ecumenism,
this would be dishonest and unethical.The Latin laity could appeal to the Dijon
secular Council, the local administration.
Tell them about the Lionel Andrades
interpretation of Vatican Council II which does not use false premise and which
is not dishonest.-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 28, 2021
Le Pen must see that the problem in Dijon is political and not only religious : Bishop Minnerath must be asked to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise at Holy Mass
LE PEN MUST SEE THAT THE PROBLEM IN DIJON IS POLITICAL AND NOT ONLY RELIGIOUS: BISHOP MINNERATH MUST BE ASKED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE AT HOLY MASS.
Le Pen must be shown that the Dijon problem is not only religious but also political. Bishop Minnerath wants to interpret Vatican Council II like the poltiical Left and so create a rupture between Church and State, faith and practical government.
Vatican Council II is interpreted with a false premise to create a break with the historical understanding of faith and morals. Le Pen could be asked to comment on the problem of the Latin Mass / Vatican Council II in Dijon. Why do lay Catholics have to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and create a break with the old ecclesiology and past theology of the Traditional Mass in France?
Lesamisdebasilique could appeal to Le Pen for the Latin Mass to be offered by priests who interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise. Because without the false premise, there is no break with the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church in France. .
Liberalism in theology and doctrine in Dijon depends upon the use of a false premise. Without the false premise, the Church would say that there is no known salvation outside the Church in the present times. LG, LG 16, UR 3 etc. would not be examples of known people saved without faith and the baptism of water in 2021. Then Vatican Council II would be saying outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7).
For Bishop Minnerath the Second Vatican Council now says instead that outside the Church there is salvation.Since he interpret the Council, confusing LG 8, LG 16 etc as exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It is as if LG 8, LG 16 etc refer to real people and not only to hypothetical and speculative cases. Without this deception, Bishop Roland Minnerath cannot quote Vatican Council II to support his liberalism.
The bishop wrote books and articles interpreting the Second Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors with the common false premise.So he created a false new theology, which is a break with Tradition. This false break with Tradition will be the theology of diocesan priests at the Novus Ordo(French) and Latin Mass in Dijon. Why should diocesan priests offer the Mass in Latin with the left-wing political version of the Second Vatican Council?
Le Pen could ask Bishop Minnerath to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors without the false premise and to interpret the First Commandment as did the Magisterium of the Church over the centuries in France.
The difference between Bishop Minnerath and me is that I consider baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BDS) and invincible ignorance (I.I) as not being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. There are no literal cases in 2021. So the Second Vatican Council is not a break with Tradition for me. It has a continuity with the traditional exclusive salvation. Ad Gentes 7 says that everyone needs faith and baptism for salvation. Therefore according to the Council everyone needs to convert to the Catholic Church for salvation (AG 7) and not only those who "know" (LG 14). Those who "know" and who are saved,are known only to God. The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 14. While LG 14(invincible ignorance) is not exception for AG 7. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 27, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath made an error in two books which he wrote on Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors
JUNE 26, 2021
The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion
The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion. - Lionel Andrades
UNE 11, 2021
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 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.
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. 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. -Lionel Andrades
Fake premise
THURSDAY, JULY 1, 2021
Pope Francis and Bishop Roland Minnerath create division in Dijon with the New Theology which the FSSP will have to accept of offer Holy Mass in French
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.
This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
Interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and Lionel Andrades
INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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 BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
JUNE 29, 2021
In Dijon, France Catholics do not have unity on the First Commandment, the Creeds, Catechisms, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II and Bishop Roland Minnerath is allowed to offer Holy Mass. The laity could ask the bishop and the fssp priests, religious communities and parishiones, to interpret Vatican Council Ii and Magisterial documents without the fake premise and instead to use the rational premise
SUNDAY, JULY 11, 2021
The evangelisation issue has not been settled between Bishop Roland Minnerath and the FSSP priests. Also the FSSP Superior in Dijone, France still wants to only offer Mass in Latin.
The evangelisation issue has not been settled between
Bishop Roland Minnerath and the FSSP priests. Also the
FSSP Superior in Dijone, France still wants to only offer
Mass in Latin.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 10, 2021
The issue of Evangelisation has not been settled between Bishop Roland Minnerath and the FSSP priests in Dijon, France.
The issue of Evangelisation has not been settled between Bishop Roland Minnerath and the FSSP priests in Dijon, France.The FSSP, like the SSPX, are going back to Tradition and side stepping Vatican Council II, interpreted with a fake premise. So the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q,27Q) could be as valid for the FSSP as Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.This all could be meaningless for the bishop and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican.
Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise, inference and conclusion.So the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX which supports the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, is made obsolete for him.
The bishop has written books on this subject.He now supports a theology of religions, in his proclamation of Jesus. It is Jesus without the necessity of formal membership in the Catholic Church. His concept of Hell and mortal sin would also be vague and confusing. Catholics in the the diocese will have lost their identity.
Bishop Minnerath creates division in the Church with his New Theology, which comes from the false premise used in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO), relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.For him extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) has exceptions.
If the FSSP does not use the New Theology as part of the New Evangelisation, there will be tension.They would be going back to EENS with no exceptions.They could be suppressed like the Movimento Apostolico and Maria Madre delle Redenzione, of Catanzaro, Italy.
Bishop Minnerath could not tell the non Christians in Dijon, that they must accept Jesus in the Catholic Church and convert to avoid the fires of Hell. This is not possible.Since the bishop interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and so creates exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc. The FSSP can evangelize non Christians, unlike the bishop, if the FSSP would continue to reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise.They would also have to reject the Syllabus of Errors , interpreted with the same fake premise. So there would no more be exceptions for them for the Catechism of Pope Pius X at 24Q and 24Q in Vatican Council II. They would be in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Church in a way it is not possible for Bishop Minnerath.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment