In my parish the priests do not affirm the Athanasius Creed.

In may parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, the priests do not affirm the Athanasius Creed. They change the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed with the use of a false premise.They re-interpret Vatican Council II with the same fake premise and change the interpretations of all the Catechisms.They do consider this a mortal sin of faith.They about 'new information' and 'being open' and 'following Pope Francis'. Do they believe in the secrecy of the Sacrament of Confession ? Really? Why ? -Lionel Andrades

 JUNE 1, 2021

Often it is the pope who transfers conservative religious. This time it was a lay organisation which transferred liberal religious, in Rome.

 In the parish of Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Pope Francis closed down the seminary of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in Rome.The seminary building and adjoining property is now held by the Comitato dell Immaculata, formed by Fr. Stefano Manelli f.i.

They objected to the presence of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata.They had been there since Pope Francis shuttered the original seminary of Fr. Manelli.

So the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate  no more live at Casalotti.They do not any more  offer Holy Mass there.

Often it is the pope who transfers conservative religious. This time it was a lay organisation which had the liberal religious, in Rome,tranferred.

I attend Holy Mass in Italian and affirm Catholic Tradition as a lay Catholic.There is no more a Latin Mass in the parish or even the adjoining area.

I affirm the Athanasius Creed (Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally...).

I affirm the Nicene and Apostles Creed, interpreted without a fake premise. So my interpretation of these two Creeds would be different from that of the present Parish Priest Fr. Francesco Barbosa, of the Brazilian Societa Joselitos Christo.

The Rector of the seminary at Casalotti, was Fr. Rosario Sammarco f.i.He now offers Mass at St.Mary Majors and remains the rector of the seminary in  Tiburtina,Rome.

Fr.Rosario Samarco would reject the Athanasius Creed.He would interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise.It would be the same for the seminarians.It is the same for the Joselitos Chrito priests and the Italian diocesan priests.They are following the instructions of Vatican and the Rome Vicariate. 

I accept Vatican Council II and interpret it without the false premise. So my interpretation of the Council would not be a rupture with Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).The priests and religious communities in the parish and diocese, interpret the Council with the false premise. So our Profession of Faith will be different. Since our premises are different the Religious will emerge non traditional and I traditional.

I accept the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I).I do not reject them or deny them.For me they refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only.They can only be hypothetical and theoretical in our human reality.Since if any one was saved with BOD and I.I it would only be known to God.So for me, BOD and I.I are not examples of known people in the present times ( 1965-2021), saved outside the Catholic Church.I cannot meet or see someone saved with BOD or I.I.So when Vatican Council II refers to BOD(LG 14) and I.I(LG 16), it is always a reference to a hypothetical and theoretical case which exists only in our mind.It cannot be a practical exception to EENS, as EENS was known to the Church Fathers and the missionaries in the 16th century.

For me the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.How can BOD and I.I be practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS ?

So our interpretation of BOD and I.I would also be different. I would affirm an EENS with no exceptions and they would affirm an EENS with exceptions.

It is not known how the seminary building will be used. The original community of the Fransciscans Friars of the Immaculate are not seen here.-Lionel Andrades

 JUNE 2, 2021

I affirm the Athanasius Creed

 I affirm the Athanasius Creed,interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed rationally,interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and do not use the false premise to interpret the Catechisms of Trent, Baltimore, Pius X, John Paul II etc.The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a break with Tradition for me.I do not employ the false premise, inference and conclusion of cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn.I interpret Vatican Council II rationally with the hermeneutic of continity with Feeneyite EENS, the Deposit of Faith and the popes and saints of the past.My interpretation of Church document is Magisterial,since it is rational, traditional and in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.The present two popes interpretation of Magisterial documents with the false premise is not Magisterial. It is political. -Lionel Andrades

MAY 13, 2021

Pope Francis had to close down the Franciscans of the Immaculate seminary and force the seminarians to study at the pontifical universities in Rome.There they had to interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms with the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.They had to accept this leftist, political interpretation of the Council .Now they teach it to others

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/pope-francis-had-to-close-down.html

MAY 30, 2021

In my parish the priests have changed the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed and rejected the Athanasius Creed and they offer Holy Mass in Italian. They interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to project a non traditional conclusion and then then offer Holy Mass.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-my-parish-priests-have-changed.html

MAY 30, 2021

In my parish the priests reject the Athanasius Creed, change the Nicene and Apostles Creed and re-interpet Vatican Council II irrationally and do not deny it. They agree with me!

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-my-parish-priests-reject-athanasius.html

MAY 29, 2021

Scandal at my parish

 

I affirm the Athanasius Creed (Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally...)in the parish but the priests and many of the parishioners do not do the same.

I live in the parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea.It is a 20-minute drive from Rome's Battistini Metro Station.How can they offer/attend Holy Mass and not affirm the infallible teaching of the Athanasius Creed?

I affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally in the parish but the priests and most of the parishioners do not do so.

For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. In other words, they refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. They refer to physically visible people saved without faith and the baptism of water.Invisible and unknown people cannot be exceptions to the Creed. So with this irrationality they make the Athanasius Creed obsolete.

My interpretation of Vatican Council II is rational and traditional.It is not a break with the Creeds.

How can the priests and people offer/attend Holy Mass with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II etc ?

When the priests and people in the parish do not affirm the Athanasius Creed and Vatican Council II, do they no have to go for the Sacrament of Confession, end the scandal and correct themselves in public ?

For me the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only. I cannot meet or see someone saved as such.It is only God who can know if someone is saved with BOD and I.I. So there are no practical cases of BOD and I.I for me.There are also no practical exceptions to the past Magisterial ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.

But with visible for them,BOD and I.I, the priests and catechists and others in the parish, reject the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

They change the interpretation of Vatican Council II.Since for them, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc  contradict the dogma EENS. There are practical exceptions for them.

So they have rejected the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.

They have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed. It is " I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( so EENS is rejected)".

They have changed the meaning of the Apostles Creed. It is " I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,'which teaches the Catholic Church today that there is known salvation outside the Church and so the Creeds and Catechisms are obsolete in their old understanding".

They have changed the meaning of the First Commandment which now indicates for them that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation and so there is true worship in non Christian religions.

This is public heresy, scandal and schism and Holy Mass is offered/ attended, by all in the parish.

This scandal has to be rectified in public, before absolution is given in the Confessional. -Lionel Andrades

https://www.smnazaret.it/

MAY 28, 2021

Priests are expected to affirm the Athanasius Creed in the parish. Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades is not a rupture

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/priests-are-expected-to-affirm.html

MAY 27, 2021

Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ( Updated )

 

Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (Updated)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.-Lionel Andrades

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 Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/there-is-no-denial-from-congregation.html   

Lionel Andrades

Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.

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@gmail.com

___________________

I affirm the Athanasius Creed

 I affirm the Athanasius Creed,interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed rationally,interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and do not use the false premise to interpret the Catechisms of Trent, Baltimore, Pius X, John Paul II etc.The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a break with Tradition for me.I do not employ the false premise, inference and conclusion of cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn.I interpret Vatican Council II rationally with the hermeneutic of continity with Feeneyite EENS, the Deposit of Faith and the popes and saints of the past.My interpretation of Church document is Magisterial,since it is rational, traditional and in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.The present two popes interpretation of Magisterial documents with the false premise is not Magisterial. It is political. -Lionel Andrades

...desiderate il Dio Vivente o volete metterlo da parte e vivere secondo...

It is the liberals who now have to be open to Vatican Council II

 We can no more say that the traditionalists have to be open to Vatican Council II.We can no more interpret the Council in an irrational way and then pretend it is a rupture with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

With the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II we have changed the way we look at the Council.Now it is the liberals who have to be open to a traditional VC2.The Council has 'changed before our every eyes'.

VC2 interpreted rationally is not a rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church,which was there at the time of St. Joan of Arc.

Outside the Church there is no salvation is a central teaching of Vatican Council II(AG 7) and is not restricted to conservative Catholics only.

Massimo Faggioli would say that the theology of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ended with Vatican Council II.Now he knows that with the Council interpreted rationally, there can only be the theology today of the Syllabus of Errors.It is the only rational alternative.

There cannot be ' a development of doctrine or dogma' with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II or a false interpretation of John Henry Newman.The Council interpreted rationally supports Newman who said that dogmas do not change but doctrines can change before they are confirmed, as a dogma e.g The Holy Trinity.

Massimo Faggioli,John Allen jr. Michael Sean Winters and the reporters at The Tablet, U.K, cannot change the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by irrationally interpreting the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and then projecting them as practical exceptions to EENS.Similarly they cannot re-interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then project the Council as a break with EENS etc.-Lionel Andrades

Domande e risposte sull'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II

 

L’interpretazione di Concilio Vaticano II di Lionel Andrades e razionale, non eretici, non scismatici e tradizionale.

1.Cosa c'è di speciale nell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II?
Lui non usa la comune premessa falsa. E' un modo semplice, razionale e diverso di leggere il Concilio Vaticano II.

2.Cosa c'è di così speciale nell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades sul extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
Non usa la falsa premessa comune per interpretare il battesimo del desiderio (BOD), l'ignoranza invincibile (I.I) e il battesimo di sangue (BOB). Quindi non ci sono eccezioni pratiche per EENS. EENS è tradizionale e BOD, BOB e I.I sono interpretati razionalmente. Non è EENS o BOB, BOB e II. Poiché questi ultimi non fanno eccezione per i primi.

3.L'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades dei documenti del Magistero è copy right o trade mark?

 No. Chiunque può usarlo. Non c'è nessun addebito. Si tratta semplicemente di tornare all'interpretazione tradizionale dei documenti della Chiesa, senza la falsa premessa. La falsa premessa è entrata nella Chiesa in grande stile, con la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio all'Arcivescovo di Boston relativa a p. Leonard Feeney (1949).

4.Come è emersa l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades di VC 2?
Ha continuato a scrivere sul suo blog(Eucharist and Missiion) su EENS e poi ha scoperto che il Concilio Vaticano II non contraddice realmente l'EENS se si evita la falsa premessa.


5.L'interpretazione di LA sul VC2 è una nuova teologia?
No. È tornare alla vecchia teologia tradizionale della Chiesa Cattolica evitando la falsa premessa. È la falsa premessa che ha creato la Nuova Teologia. Senza la falsa premessa non può esserci il Nuovo Ecumenismo, la Nuova Evangelizzazione, la Nuova Ecclesiologia ecc. La Nuova Teologia è Cristocentrica senza il passato ecclesiocentrismo della Chiesa. Con proiettando una premessa falsa sono state create eccezioni all'EENS, al Credo di Atanasio, al Sillabo degli Errori, ecc.. L'errore è stato trascurato dai papi.

6.Che dire della dottrina missionaria tradizionale del XVI secolo?
Con l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II torniamo alla dottrina tradizionale della Missione. Non è più "solo loro bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa che lo sanno", che “non sono nell'ignoranza invincibile” (LG 14) Invece, è tutto bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa Cattolica senza alcuna eccezione conosciuta. L'ignoranza invincibile non è un'eccezione per tutti coloro che hanno bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa con la fede e il battesimo (LG 14). Quindi evangelizziamo poiché tutti i non cattolici sono orientati all'Inferno, senza la fede e il battesimo d'acqua (Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Concilio Vaticano II). La norma per salvezza è fede e battesimo e non è ignoranza invincibile.Quando incontro un non cattolico, non posso presumere o pretendere di sapere che lui o lei è un'eccezione alla norma.Se c'è un'eccezione potrebbe essere conosciuta solo da Dio. So che il non cattolico prima di me, è orientato all'Inferno ( Credo di Atanasio, Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7, LG 14), Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica (845.846,1257), Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX, ecc.)


7.E l'ermeneutica della continuità o della rottura con la Tradizione?
Con l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II non c'è rottura con i documenti del Magistero del passato e nemmeno si contraddicono. Dobbiamo però reinterpretare i documenti del Magistero del passato, che menzionano il battesimo del desiderio (BOD) e l'ignoranza invincibile (I.I ), come ipotetici e invisibili sempre. L'essere salvati con BOD e I.I sono sempre fisicamente invisibili, quando sono menzionati nei Catechismi (Trento, Pio X ecc.) e nelle encicliche e nei documenti dei papi (Mystici Corporis ecc.). Si riferiscono sempre solo a casi ipotetici e non sono oggettivamente conosciuti non-cattolici. Se qualcuno viene salvato fuori dalla Chiesa può essere conosciuto solo da Dio. Questo deve essere chiaro leggendo anche la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949 all'Arcivescovo di Boston. Non c'è confusione nemmeno nella lettura del testo del Concilio Vaticano II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 ecc, si riferiscono sempre solo a casi ipotetici e quindi non contraddicono il Credo di Atanasio.

8.I papi dovrebbero usare l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II?
SÌ! Poiché attualmente i due papi sono scismatici, eretici, non magisteriali e non tradizionalisti sul Concilio Vaticano II. Dev'essere così poiché usano la falsa premessa. È solo con la falsa premessa, inferenza e conclusione che interpretano i documenti magisteriali. Ciò può essere evitato con una premessa razionale, un'inferenza e una conclusione tradizionale. Il risultato è un'ermeneutica di continuità con la Tradizione.

9.Quale altro vantaggio c'è nel conoscere l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II?
Leggiamo il testo del Concilio Vaticano II in generale in modo diverso con questo interpretazione, di interpretazione di Lionel Andrades.
'Il rosso non è un'eccezione al blu'. I passaggi ipotetici (segnati in rosso sul blog Eucaristia e Missione, non sono eccezioni pratiche ai passaggi ortodossi del Concilio Vaticano II che supportano l'EENS e sono contrassegnati in blu.
Per gli attuali due papi ei tradizionalisti il rosso è un'eccezione al blu. Questo è irrazionale.

10.Che rapporto ha con la liturgia?
Senza la falsa premessa il Concilio Vaticano II è tradizionale. Il Concilio Vaticano II è in armonia con extra ecclesiam nulla salus secondo i missionari del XVI secolo. Siamo quindi tornati all'ecclesiologia ecclesiocentrica passata della Chiesa Cattolica. Quando il Concilio è tradizionale non c'è 'sviluppo della dottrina' o 'spirito del Concilio Vaticano II'. Collegialità, libertà religiosa ed ecumenismo non sono più un problema. Quindi ricevere la Santa Comunione sulla mano non può più essere giustificato con il Concilio Vaticano II. Né l'Eucaristia può essere data ai divorziati risposati, in nome del Concilio.
Né il Sinodo tedesco può essere giustificato citando il Concilio Vaticano II. Non c'è più alcuna base teologica nel Concilio per dare l'Eucaristia ai protestanti durante la Santa Messa.

Premessa falsa
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. nel Concilio Vaticano II si riferiscono a casi fisicamente visibili nel 1965-2021.

Inferenza falsa
Sono esempi oggettivi di salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa.

Conclusione falsa
Il Concilio Vaticano II contraddice l'interpretazione rigorosa del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Sono stati resi osoleti il Credo di Atanasio (fuori dalla Chiesa non c'è salvezza) e il Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX (ecumenismo del ritorno).

Ecco la mia interpretazione del Concilio Vaticano II in blu.

Premessa razionale
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 ecc. nel Concilio Vaticano II si riferiscono a casi fisicamente invisibili nel 1965-2021. Sono solo ipotetici e teorici. Esistono solo nella nostra mente e non sono corpi solidi al livello di tempo, spazio e materia di Newton.

Inferenza razionale
Non sono esempi oggettivi di salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa per noi esseri umani.

Conclusione razionale
Il Concilio Vaticano II non contraddice l'EENS come era interpretato dai Gesuiti nel Medioevo. Non contraddice l'interpretazione rigorosa dell'EENS di San Tommaso d'Aquino (salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile è invisibile), Sant'Agostino e p. Leonard Feeney di Boston.
La Lettera del Sant'Uffizio (Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede) del 1949 ha commesso un errore oggettivo.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/thereis-no-denial-from-congregation.html

Lionel Andrades
Promotore dell'interpretazione di Concilio Vaticano II di Lionel Andrades.
Laico cattolico a Roma,
 Scrittore sulla scoperta delle due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II, l'una razionale e l'altra irrazionale, si interpreta l'una con la falsa premessa e l'altra senza. Uno è Magistrale e l'altro, quello comune, è non Magistrale.
È lo stesso per i Credo ei Catechismi. Ci possono essere due interpretazioni.
Perché i cattolici dovrebbero scegliere una versione irrazionale che è eretica, non tradizionale e scismatica, quando c'è un'opzione razionale che è tradizionale?

 

Blog: Eucharist and Mission

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

____________________

 

 

May 26, 2021

 

Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/questions-and-answers-about-lionel.html

 

Go back to the Baltimore Catechism ?

We cannot just say, "Let's go back to the Baltimore Catechism".It has to be clarified that when the Baltimore Catechism for example mentions the baptism of desire(BOD), then the BOD, can be intepreteted as a hypothetical or objective case.It is subjective or objective, implicit or explicit.This is how it is being interpreted by Catholics. If the premise is different then the conclusion will be a rupture or continuation with Tradition.It will mean accepting the strict intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus or rejecting it.The conclusion is traditional or non traditional.
If a Catholic can throw away the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), then every thing else can be done away with. So of what good are the Catehisms then ? Of what good are the Catechisms if EENS has exceptions today but not have exceptions in the 16th century?
It has to be clarified that when the Baltimore Catechism refers to the baptism of desire it is only to a hypothetical, subjective, implicit and theoretical case.It exists only in our mind.There is no BOD case in our human reality, at Newton's level of time and space.This is the rational interpretation of BOD.
But for the Americanists this was not true. The baptism of desire was an objective case. It was a practical exception to the traditional strict itnerpetation of EENS. BOD did not exist just in our mind for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So a new doctrine on salvation was created in the Church and there was a new way to read the Catechisms; to read them wrongly.The new doctrine was EENS with exceptions;outside the Church there is salvation.
So when reading the Catechisms(  Baltimore,Trent Pius X,John Paul II etc)it is important to note that the baptsm of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical cases only.
If this is not clarified then all the Catechisms will be confusing and they would contradict itself and each other.
Also Vatican Council II would be at odds with the old Catechisms.LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc would contradict the strict interpretation of EENS when it is mentioned in the Catechisms example 24Q and 27Q in the Catechism of Pope Pius X. - Lionel Andrades

 

 

 

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catechism-question

A Medjugorje ho vissuto quella pace che ti fa star bene e che cercavo- Comunità: Gesù confido in Te