Sunday, May 30, 2021
I am not saying any thing new and neither am I rejecting Vatican Council II.Michael Sean Winters, John Allen jr and Massimo Faggioli know it and they are remaining silent as if I do exist. Bishop Robert Barron and the Word on Fire apologists are also having a hard time
I am not saying any thing new and neither am I rejecting Vatican Council II.Michael Sean Winters, John Allen jr and Massimo Faggioli know it and they are remaining silent as if I do exist. Bishop Robert Barron and the Word on Fire apologists are also having a hard time. - Lionel Andrades
MAY 18, 2021
Choose Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades on the blog Eucharistandmission
MAY 18, 2021
Why should Catholics choose the progressivist and Lefebvrist interpretation of Vatican Council II with a false premise instead of mine without the fake premise ?
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-choose.html
MAY 17, 2021
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ? Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office(CDF) made an objective mistake. Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, made an objective error.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-choose-irrational.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search?q=Vatican+Council+II+according+to+the+blog+Eucharistandmission
_____________________________________
JUNE 22, 2019
You are guilty of the error you accuse me of, an inability to admit, in this case, that the Church has declared an unbaptized catechumen in heaven, with St Emerentiana. Your only rebuttal is that the Church could not possibly know if St Emerentiana is in heaven without water baptism( and so we should not posit St.Emerentiana as an exception to EENS, secondly someone in the past is only a hypothetical case today.A possibility saved without the baptism of water in the past, known only to God, cannot be a practical and objective exception to the dogma EENS.Thirdly even if she was saved without the baptism of water as is speculated it does not mean that the possibility is an actual exception to the dogma EENS in the present times(1965-2019) (and thus we should view the object of the Church's public cult for this catechumen saint as merely hypothetical!!),( She is a saint and the cult can continue but please do not say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
You would not know and the Church has not said that any particular person would know and has the gift of seeing people in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water.) and thus your entire apologetic is flawed with the fallacy of petitio principii.
I have also proven to you that you personally do not know of any LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 case in the present times ( 1965-2019) saved outside or within the Church.You have agreed with me. I have also proven to you that you are afraid to admit this common place and obvious conclusion in public , since it will....and for whatever other reason.
These are two important points that you and I have in agreement) other than the fact that you have failed to show where the Church says the indelible mark is absolutely necessary for salvation ( The Catechism of Pope Pius X says that the baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation. I sent you a citation.You ignored it.I also quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257 The Necessity of Baptism).Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(Ad Gentes 7).The norm for salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and not the baptism of desire. (of course, the Church teaches no such thing, otherwise you would have produced the teaching),( If you want more teachings I could produce them, for example the three Church Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the statements of the pope in the ordinary magisterium, the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation and so infers faith and baptism is necessary for all with no exception, the Syllabus of Errors etc, etc,) and that you rely on your own private interpretation of councils and catechisms rather than the public teaching of the Church and 2,000 years of tradition.( I affirm the public interpretation of the popes before Pius XII who did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were known people saved outside the Church. They did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to EENS. It is the SSPX which is at odds with the popes over the centuries. They affirm BOD, BOB and I.I like the popes, since Pius XII.Then with this irrationality(invisible BOD, BOB and I.I cases are physically visible to them) they go back over the centuries and re-interpret the popes as suggesting BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them.Then they say that all the popes contradicted Fr. Leonard Feeney.)
You admit that you do not know of any case of BOD, BOB and I.I which could be an exception to EENS in 2019 .Yet you do not state this in public. You do not want me to quote you. Even a non Christian would agree and say that he knows that there are no BOD,BOB and I.I cases known on earth.They could only be known to God. This is something obvious for human beings in general.And yet you are not sure of yourself on something which will not be denied even by non Catholics.You don't want to be quoted.
So you are allowing the SSPX to continue to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and so change the original meaning of EENS.You will not correct them in public. This is heresy. It is a mortal sin of faith.
You also know that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not refer to practical exceptions to EENS. I have had to spend time explaining it to you and this is not possible with others. Yet you are keeping silent about this and do not inform the SSPX, the traditionalists and the Vatican.Since then they will call you a Feeneyite and not give you the importance they do presently.You do not want to be quoted because of your private interests.You also do not want to admit that like Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and the others you were wrong about Vatican Council II all these years.
Your priority should be Jesus and his Church.
-Lionel Andrades
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no literal case of the baptism of desire.Not a single case.
From the Book Bread of Life by Father Leonard Feeney:
Page 25... " it is now: Baptism of water or damnation! if you do not desire that water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it you cannot be saved."
Lionel: He was correct.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) says every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same (1257 The Necessity of Baptism). The Catechism of Pope Pius X says the same...So Fr. Leonard Feeney was repeating the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II also says, for salvation, faith and the baptism of water is needed .(AG 7, LG 14). It is referring to Catholic faith and the baptism of water.The reference in Vatican Councl II (AG 7) is to salvation and not just justification.
Page 40.... " It is sinful to call a man to salvation by offering them Baptism of Desire.
Lionel : Yes. Since we cannot say that any particular person will be saved with the baptism of desire.
__________________
" A Baptism of Desire Catholic is NOT a member of the Catholic church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of the faithfully departed"
Lionel: He does not exist. There is baptism of desire case on earth.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no literal case of the baptism of desire.Not a single case.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019
Why should Brother Andre Marie interpret CCC 846 according to the liberals and heretics and not me ? He is affirming CCC 846 and EENS, CCC 846 and CCC 847-848.He does not have to choose as the CDF Secretaries. Morandi and Di Noia,want him to do.
Comment
The issue, however, is that CCC 846 states the dogma and then changes its meaning.
The meaning is only changed if in your mind BOD, BOB and I.I 1 refer to exceptions to EENS.
CCC 846 Changes the dogma's meaning from outside the Church to inside the Church.
CCC 846 does not say that inside the Church there is salvation for me, since BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible and unknown .
CCC 846 could be saying that inside the Church there is salvation for Cardinal Ratzinger and most Catholics since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to visible and known people saved outside the Church. So they are exceptions to EENS for them.
It depends upon how you look at it.
Why should Brother Andre Marie MICM interpret CCC 846 according to the liberals and heretics and not me ?
Why should he be irrational and assume unknown and invisible people are known and physically visible and then create a theology upon this objective error?
The CCC, by changing the “Outside Church No Salvation” dogma to”Inside Church Is Salvation”, committed an act of heresy.
But you too X, are interpreting CCC 846 like the CDF.For you BOD, BOB and I.I refer to personally known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church.This is why there is salvation for you 'inside ' the Church.Or outside the Church there is salvation with BOD, BOB and I.I. It is a subtle error.
Brother Andre Marie MICM in his Doctrinal Letter to the CDF has said that there are no personally known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance etc. So CCC 846 does not contradict the dogma EENS, which he also affirms.
He is affirming CCC 846 and EENS, CCC 846 and CCC 847-848.
He does not have to choose as the CDF Secretaries. Morandi and Di Noia,want him to do.
Final: Changing a dogma's meaning is an act of heresy.
Not interpreting and accepting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS would also be heresy ?
-Lionel Andrades
1
BOD(baptism of desire) , BOB(baptism of blood) and I.I (invincible ignorance)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2018
The present position of the Church on this issue is irrational, non traditional and heretical. It is schism with the past popes and the Church Councils on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is an official error.
I believe in Bob, Bod and II EXACTLY as taught by the Catholic Church unlike Father Feeney who did not and was excommunicated!
I know you believe in the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) exactly as taught by the Catholic Church after 1949.For the Church BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENs. In other words they refer to known people, personally known. They are literal cases.So in this way they are exceptions.
If they were no visible and known people outside the Church they would not be exceptions.
But how can they be visible and known people when they are in Heaven and known only to God?
But how can they be visible and known people when they are in Heaven and known only to God?
The present position of the Church on this issue is irrational, non traditional and heretical. It is schism with the past popes and the Church Councils on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is an official error.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/frleonard-feeney-did-not-have-to-reject.html
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/catholics-can-interpret-vatican-council.html
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/until-today-popes-and-cardinals-make.html
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Pope Benedict confirmed this error in public ( Avvenire, March 2016) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference, question and answer session( March 1, 2018). So Fr. Leonard Feeney held the de fide teaching on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I and those who excommunicated him were teaching heresy.
I can not even imagine how you could possibly defend Father Feeney who at the very LEAST misunderstood the teaching of the Catholic Church on BOB, BOD and II
Fr: Leonard Feeney was not saying any thing knew. Instead he was rejecting the theological innovation, based on an irrationality, which was brought into the Catholic Church.
He was affirming the 'strict' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; outside the Church there is no salvation.He was doing this without assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood( BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation with no known exceptions( Catechism of the Catholic Church, Athanasius Creed, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).
At the same time he theoretically and hypothetically accepted BOD, BOB and I.I as is seen in his book The Bread of Life. He could, conceive of the theoretical case of the unknown catechumen who desired the baptism of water before he died and would allegedly be saved.For him it could only result in justification. For salvation the baptism of water was always needed.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X, like Fr. Leonard Feeney says that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation and that Protestants etc are on the way to Hell since they are outside the Church. This Catechism also mentions the case of someone theoretically being saved in invincible ignorance etc.It does not state that this is a known person saved outside the Church. Since obviously there is no such known person. This is a given.
However liberal theologians interpreted invincible ignorance in this Catechism, and magisterial documents in general, as referring not to an invisible person. For me however this Catechism refers to a physically invisible person who is allegedly saved in invincible ignorance.
So for the theologicans this Catechism would contradict itself and the dogma EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This error was also overlooked by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and those who have had their religious formation under him or his bishops.
They all interpret invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X as contradicting the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are also made a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16h century.
Pope Benedict confirmed this error in public ( Avvenire, March 2016) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference, question and answer session( March 1, 2018).
So Fr. Leonard Feeney held the de fide teaching on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I and those who excommunicated were teaching heresy. They were rejecting traditional EENS with known and visible for them cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.For Fr.Leonard Feeney literally there were no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/frleonard-feeney-did-not-have-to-reject.html
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/catholics-can-interpret-vatican-council.html
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/until-today-popes-and-cardinals-make.html
Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there.
When Father Feeney said over and over and over again was that there was no such thing as baptism of blood(BOB), baptism of desire (BOD) or invincible ignorance (I.I). He WAS wrong.
For example in his Book " Bread of Life" on page 41 He openly denounces BOB , BOD and II as ever existing in probability and/or reality.
For him literally there could be no such thing as BOD, BOB and I.I. And he is correct.Don't you agree?. Are you saying that literally, objectively, there are BOD, BOB and I.I cases? Of course not! You are saying what is obvious, what is common sense.It was the same with him. You are saying the same thing as him.
In his book he is interpreted as theologically rejecting BOD,BOB and I.I as exceptions. As exceptions and not as hypothetical cases.
He does not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there.
They do not exist in our reality. Literally they are not there. You can have many wonderful thoughts about BOD, BOB and I.I but they do not exist for us in reality.This is the bottom line and he knew it.
-Lionel Andrades
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation.
Father Feeney denied BOB, BOD or II at the death of someone as professed by God alone. It does NOT matter whether we could know of such a person or not for Father Feeney was excommuniicated for NOT believing in BOB, BOD or II under ANY circumstances before or after death.
He denied that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
BOD,BOB and I.I at the death of someone known only to God is known only to God. So how can it be an objective example of known salvation outside the Church? How can it be an exception to the teaching on all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation? ( Catechism of St.Pius X).
In his book The Bread of Life he referred to the case of the catechumen.So he was not denying BOD, BOB and I.I hypothetically, in theory.
He was saying that BOD, BOB and I.I were not practical exceptions to EENS. Literally we do not know of any BOD, BOB and I.I case in the present times.
Those who excommunicated him wrongly assumed that there were personally known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I which were objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. This is irrational reasoning.
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistakehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/fr-leonard-feeney-was-correct-invisible.html
SEPTEMBER 15, 2018
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
I can not even imagine how you could possibly defend Father Feeney who at the very LEAST misunderstood the teaching of the Catholic Church on BOB, BOD and II.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there are no cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) relative to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is how I understand it.
I agree with him. Literally there are no cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in our reality in 2018.These are references to only hypothetical cases.
We cannot meet or see someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I. Neither could they do so over the last 100 years.
So I accept BOD, BOB and I.I as hypothetical. I do not reject them. They cannot be anything else.
The popes of the past did the same.When the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it is a reference to a physically invisible case. So it is not a contradiction when the Catechism also says that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
So Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
It was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who were irrational.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 15, 2018
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2018
If Fr.Leonard Feeney referred to the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance literally, he was not wrong. Literally there are no such cases.
So sorry Lionel, Father Feeney was wrong in what he said about Bob, Bod and II when he denied
their very existence
Lionel:
If he was referring to the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and
being saved in invincible ignorance literally, he was not wrong.
Literally there are no such cases.
_________________________
VCII was the worst council we ever had and did away with the understanding of BOB, BOD and I as understood for many centuries.
Lionel: At Vatican Council II they repeated the error made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and this can be seen clearly in Lumen Gentium 14 where it says only those who know need to enter the Church. This error comes direct from the Letter (1949).
However the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.-Lionel Andrades
LINKS FROM THE RIGHT HAND BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS
- Lionel Andrades in five steps (3)
- Lionel Andrades' Catholic beliefs (8)
- Lionel Andrades' description of Feeneyism and Cushingism (6)
- Lionel Andrades' intepretation of Vatican Council II and Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (14)
- Lionel Andrades' interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS (9)
- Lionel Andrades' interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS : Questions and Answers (9)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
