Saturday, March 6, 2021

They are not aware of the false premise and are going in circles. The liberals and the traditionalists are using a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II: the popes have done the same

Posted by at No comments:

The University of Nottingham has to use the fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II otherwise their conclusion would be politically incorrect with the Left in England

Posted by at No comments:

Bishop Robert Barron has been informed that we can interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.There is no response from him. I am saying that there are no physically visible non Catholics in 2021 who are saved outside the Church. We cannot see or meet them in the flesh. If they existed they would only be known to God. I am speaking in the sense of physics, moving bodies, stationary bodies, momentum, Newton's laws of gravitation etc.Lumen Gentium 16 does not refer to a known person in 1965-2021

  
Bishop Robert Barron has been informed that we can interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.There is no response from him. 
I am saying that there are no physically visible non Catholics in 2021 who are saved outside the Church. We cannot see or meet them in the flesh. If they existed they would only be known to God. I am speaking in the sense of physics, moving bodies, stationary bodies, momentum, Newton's Laws of Gravitation etc.Lumen Gentium 16 does not refer to a known person in 1965-2021. -Lionel Andrades
Posted by at No comments:

Pope Benedict XVI speaks to priests of Rome about Vatican II and does not tell them that the Council can be interpreted without the common false premise and the conclusion would be a hermeneutic of continuity with the past. It would not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX

Posted by at No comments:

There is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and an ecumenism of return yet this professor suggests that there is. He calls it a reversal of Catholic teaching and tries to rationalize this ' development'


 MARCH 4, 2021

Eduardo Echeverria, Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit uses a fake premise to interpret the Council . He has been informed but he wants to continue with it

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/03/eduardo-echeverria-professor-of.html
Posted by at No comments:

Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith know that Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus can be interpreted without the irrational premise but they will not come out in public with the truth, for political reasons

 Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith know that Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus can be interpreted without the irrational premise but they will not come out in public with the truth, for political reasons. -Lionel Andrades

Posted by at No comments:

Pope Francis is hiding the truth about Vatican Council II and his cardinals and bishop 'courtiers' are playing along with him

 Pope Francis is hiding the truth about Vatican Council II and his cardinals and bishop 'courtiers' are playing along with him. -Lionel Andrades




MAY 8, 2016


"Do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” - Pope Francis to Archbishop Bruno Forte.

forte'

"do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” -Pope Francis to Archbishop Bruno Forte.
Which premise is Pope Francis referring to ? 
Christopher A. Ferrara
Christopher Ferrara does not answer 1.
Both Bruno Forte and the popeknow that there are irrational premises used in theology. I think Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schonborn also know what was the irrational premise. The false premise was  used to create a new theology in faith and morals.
But Christopher Ferrara and the traditionalists still do not understand.
They do not know what was the specific premise that Pope Francis referred to.
''do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”
THE PREMISE IS:
The premise is that there is known salvation outside the Church and the conclusion is that the dogma EENS is no longer valid.
The premise is that we know of people saved without the baptism of water and the conclusion is that there is salvation outside the Church. So there is a new doctrine on salvation.
The premise is that we can know objectively, subjective factors, which would indicate that a person in manifest mortal sin is not going to Hell.So the conclusion is that there are exceptions to the traditional understanding on mortal sin.
Since the premise for Pope Francis is that there is known salvation outside the Church, the conclusion for Pope Francis, is that  all Methodists and Protestants do not need to convert into the Catholic Church to be saved from Hell.
ABP.LEFEBVRE WAS UNAWARE OF THE PREMISE
I mentioned in an earlier blog post that the books recommended by Hilary White 2 notice the  change in the the Church .They however do not mention the theology based on an irrational premise which has created the change.More important, they were unaware that without this theology,without the irrational premise, Vatican Council II is orthodox.
Abp. Lefebvre, D. Von Hildebrand and  Michael Davies were using an irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II.They assumed hypothetical cases  were explicit and these explicit cases, it was concluded, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.They also assumed that these hypothetical cases happened without the baptism of water.
If any pope or religious, uses an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, the conclusion has to be irrational, non traditional - and heretical.I think the popes and Archbishop Forte know this.
Related image

Cardinal Walter Kaspar has used the irrational premise.I have pointed it out on this blog. 

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith  has done the same.

Even Bishop Bernard Fellay has on line interpreted Vatican Council II using the false premise.He has reached an irrational conclusion i.e Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The contemporary magisterium does not make the explicit-implicit distinction.With an irrational premise and conclusion Vatican Council II is projected as a break with Tradition and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Without the irrational premise and conclusion which comes  from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and affirms the old ecclesiology.

CATECHESIS WITH THE FALSE PREMISE : CHILDREN ARE TAUGHT ERROR IN SCHOOL
Catholic Schools Banner
Catholic students in catechesis and religion class are taught this objective error.They have to accept the new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion.
Youth Minister certification

The children are taught :-

1. We human beings can physically see the dead in Heaven.

This is the premise.

2. We can know someone in Heaven in the present times who is there without 'faith and baptism'.This is the irrational premise.

Related image

The secular media uses an irrational premise which is 
"We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth, without the baptism of water".

Then they reach an irrational conclusion which is " Since we can see people in Heaven  saved without the baptism of water and without formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."

Their conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENs.

 Whenever any one says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to EENS , he  is using the false premise.

1) He infers people in Heaven saved as such are explicit on earth to be exceptions. The dead for us,  now  in Heaven  are visible in the flesh!?

2) He infers he knows of people on earth who will be saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

So if anyone says there are exceptions to EENS it is irrational. It is fantasy. It is heretical and contradicts the pre-1949 Catholic traditional teachings.

The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. So the Council is a break with the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council is a break also with the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma.







The point is that we can interpret Vatican Council II with or without the premise.The result is non traditional or traditional.There is a choice. There is an option for example, before the SSPX etc.

The false premise is reasoning and inferring that persons now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water) are personally known to us in the present times, 2016.
Related image

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, blogger-priest, made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II when he used an irrational premise to interpret the Council.The result is a non traditional conclusion, a break with the past.

MISSING LINK DISCOVERED : WHAT CAUSES THE HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE

The fault is not there with Vatican Council II but his assuming that salvation in Heaven is visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Avoid the premise and the conclusion is traditional.This is the missing link in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.
To reiterate:
what premise ?
The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
what theology,
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
what Tradition.
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils does not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
It is with the false premise and false conclusion
n this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.

If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the batism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?
Related image

The SSPX presently interprets Vatican Council II with the irational premise and so rejects the Council. Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Ladaria and the CDF/Ecclesia Dei  officials also interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise - but accept the Council.
None of the two, mention the irrational premise when they discuss Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
Pope's Forte: Spilling the Beans
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2507-pope-s-forte-spilling-the-beans
2.
 Von Hildebrand: Trojan Horse and Devastated vineyard, the Charitable Anathema 
Abp. Lefebvre: Letter to Confused Catholics
Michael Davies: everything...
______________________________________
<_________________

SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 2021

Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism. This is a great discovery

 Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism. This is great discovery. -Lionel Andrades



APRIL 3, 2014
There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Feeneyism
Feeneyism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church unless one assumes implicit for us baptism of desire is explicit for us.
According to Feeneyism  every one needs to enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' and there are no exceptions.
According to Feeneyism  the baptism of desire is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to Cushingism  every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism  in 2014 and there are exceptions.
According to Cushingism  the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
According to Feeneyism Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism)  and the dogma on exclusive salvation. Vatican Council II is not confusing.
According to Cushingism Lumen Gentium 16  is an exception.Vatican Council II contradicts itself.
Feeneyism says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cushingism says there are exceptions. Cushingism is heresy.
The Society of St.Pius X, Fischer More College and other traditionalists  have been using Cushingism. For liberals Cushingism is the basis for liberalism  and dissent with reference to Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II  and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  of Pope Pius XII, in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, are interpreted according to Cushingism. The ITC papers were approved by Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Francis expects the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to accept Vatican Council II according to Cushingism, only then will they be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2018
Today, more than ever, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X renews its attachment to the Church’s two thousand years of Tradition, convinced that this fidelity, far from being an outdated rigidness, provides the salutary remedy for the self-destruction of the Church.-Comunique of the General House of the SSPX on the Canonisation of Pope Paul VI

This is false.
'The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X renews its attachment to the Church's two thousand years of Tradition'.

The SSPX interprets the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) with what I call Cushingism, instead of Feeneyism.
They interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. They reject the Council(Cushingite) but do not interpret it with Feeneyism.
I affirm BOD,BOB and I.I with Feeneyism. I also affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism. I follow Tradition.
The SSPX interprets the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with Cushingism. I use traditional Feeneyite philosophy.For me EENS is Feeneyite .
So on the SSPX offical website BOD, BOB and I.I being explicit, become exceptions to the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite). For me BOD,BOB and I.I being implicit are not an exception or relevant to EENS ( Feeneyite).
Since BOD, BOB and I.I are implicit, as are LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite) for me.The SSPX does not seem to have any concept of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to explicit non Catholics saved outside the Church, without the baptism of water, there are now two interpretations of the Nicene Creed.There's and mine. One is Cushingite and the other Feeneyite. For them it is ,'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water, they are the baptisms of desire,blood, invincible ignorance etc'.For me it is 'I believe in one(known) baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.
They interpret all the Catechisms with Cushingism and I do so with Feeneyism. So the Catechisms must be an exception to EENS ( Feeneyite) and the past exclusivist ecclesiology for them. Not for me.
So when the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance, for example,  the SSPX reads it with Cushingite lens. The Catechism of Pope Pius X would then contradict Feeneyite EENS, the Syllabus of Errors( Feeneyite) and the past excluvist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Since BOD, BOB and I.I and UR 3 refer to objective non Catholics saved outside the Church, Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with an ecumenism of return. Also BOD, BOB and I.I becomes a rupture with Feeneyite EENS on ecumenism.
In general the SSPX interprets Magisterial documents as a rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors) unlike me and yet they keep saying that they follow Tradition.








NOVEMBER 8, 2018

SSPX Rector at St. Thonas Aquinas seminary USA seems to agree that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, interpreted the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/in-general-sspx-interprets-magisterial.html 
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/communiqu%C3%A9-general-house-sspx-canonisation-pope-paul-vi-41188



________





 FEBRUARY 19, 2018

I am referring to Feeneyism and Cushingism as explained on my blog.The fault does not lie with Vatican Council II in itself. It depends upon how you interpret the Council, whether you use Cushingism or Feeneyism. Cushingism results in the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

I am referring to Feeneyism and Cushingism as explained on my blog.
I am not referring to Fr. Leonard Feeney and Cardinal Cushing in particular.
I use their names since it has meaning for me. However any other name could have been used.
Feeneyism refers to accepting hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical. Invisible people are simply called invisible.
Cushingism refers to hypothetical cases being concrete and known people in the present times.
So with Feeneyism BOD, BOB and I.I are hypothetical cases only. So they cannot be exceptions to EENS.
With Cushingism BOD,BOB and I.I are not hypothetical and are assumed to be visible people saved outside the Church
and so they become exceptions to EENS.
Similarly with Feeneyism LG 16, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2 ,GS 22 refer to hypothetical cases, invisble people in 2018. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS.
With Cushingism LG 16, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to real people saved outside the Church and so Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS.
So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II in itself. It depends upon how you interpret the Council, whether you use Cushingism orFeeneyism.
Cushingism results in the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
The liberals and traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism.
The St. Benedict Centers interpret EENS withFeeneyism but Vatican Council II with Cushingism.-Lionel Andrades

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)