The present interpretation of Vatican Council II with the fake premise by sedevancatist Michael an Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, N.Y, USA, is approved by the liberals.If the MHFM interpreted the Council without the fake premise, it would of concern for the liberals. -Lionel Andrades
Friday, June 18, 2021
Repost/Trending : Bishop Athanasius Schneider's new website : Can we personally meet and see someone saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance in 2019 ?
MARCH 12, 2019
Bishop Athanasius Schneider's new website : Can we personally meet and see someone saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance in 2019 ?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has a new website which welcomes questions. I sent him this message a minute a ago.
Dear Bishop Athanasius Schneider,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
I am a Catholic lay man in Rome and owner of the blog Eucharist and Mission. I submit the following questions to your Excellency and would like permission to post your answer on my blog. Excuse me for not including a telephone number, since I do not use the telephone. I have not done so for a few years. I have included my e-mail number and you are also free to contact me. I have been e-mailing you but have not received a reply.
1.The Catholic Church refers to the baptism of desire,(BOD) baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), which for me are hypothetical and theoretical cases in 2019. If they happened they would only be known to God. So they are not actual non Catholics who are personally known and who are saved outside the Church.Let me further clarify: I cannot meet or see a person saved with BOD, BOB and I.I in 2019.I cannot say that there were 20 cases of the BOD last year or 25 persons, the previous year.
Is it the same for you Bishop Schneider? Would your Excellency also say that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I today and there were none which were physically known and seen for us human beings ?
2.So in 2019 BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
BOD,BOB and I.I never were exceptions to the dogma EENS in 1965 or 1949.
3. Similarly Lumen Gentium 8 (elements of sanctification and truth), Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance), Lumen Gentium 14 ( the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen) etc are all hypothetical cases for you ? They are personally invisible people in 2019? So they are not objective exceptions to the dogma EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return ?
3.When Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to 'imperfect communion with the Church', this too is a hypothetical case and can never be a known Protestant or Christian saved outside the Church.So UR 3 would not contradict the dogma EENS or an ecumenism of return ?
4.Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc all refer to hypothetical cases Vatican Council II no where contradicts the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and non Christian religions.Non Catholics including Christians need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation ?(CDF, Notification,Dupuis n.7( 2001).
In Christ
Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/03/bishop-athanasius-schneiders-new.html
Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, like Bishop Peter Libasci and the rest of the Curia.I have e-mailed him and the other members of the Curia. There is no denial from them.
Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, like Bishop Peter Libasci and the rest of the Curia.I have e-mailed him and the other members of the Curia. There is no denial from them.
Officially, Fr. de Laire uses the false premise to interpret Magisterial documents , which is unethical and dishonest and he has issued a Decree of Prohibitions against the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire on a doctrinal issue.He has also entered into litigation with Michael Voris and Church Militant TV. - Lionel Andrades
JUNE 18, 2021
The Archdiiocese of Detroit officially uses a fake premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, to create a false rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) and their spokespersons would consider this official deception as being Catholic
The Archdiiocese of Detroit officially uses a fake premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, to create a false rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) and their spokespersons would consider this official deception as being Catholic. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 18, 2021
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'. - Lionel Andrades
JUNE 17, 2021
Bishop Peter Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire like the ecclesiastics at the CDF,Vatican are dishonest in public
It fell to de Laire as judicial vicar to reinforce a Vatican decree that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary could not present themselves as Catholic. According to the lawsuit, this resulted in "several articles [at Church Militant] not only criticizing the Diocese's decision to issue the Decree, but defaming Father de Laire, personally."
The traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire, USA are still being told that they are not Catholic since they do not interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with the common irrationality, the false premise, used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican and the bishop and Curia of the Diocese of Manchester, USA.The use of the false premise to interpret Church documents and then project an alleged rupture with Tradition, is dishonest and unethical.
If Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican, would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise he would be called an ‘extremist’ by the Leftist media.Since without the false premise, the Council would be dogmatic. It would affirm the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,GS 22 etc would not be exceptions, as, it is wrongly interpreted by the CDF today.
Similarly when Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of Manchester and Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, interpret Vatican Council II , the Creeds,Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise, that they avoid being labelled traditionalists, extremists etc.
Presently Bishop Lbasci and Fr. Georges de Laire, like the ecclesiastics at the CDF, Vatican, are publically dishonest and are defaming the SBC.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-peter-libasci-and-fr-georges-de.html
______________________
_________________________
JUNE 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 does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.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.
3.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).
4.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.
5.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.
6.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).
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
10.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.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
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
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
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
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@
___________________
This is how the Department of Theology at the Angelicum University, Rome should interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial texts.
When LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 , NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II are only hypothetical and theoretical and not objective examples of salvation outside the Church, in personally known cases in 2021,then Vatican Council II is dogmatic. It affirms exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with Ad Gentes 7 .While there are no exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 mentioned in the Council.text, interpreted rationally.This interpretation of the Council would be rational, traditional and Magisterial.This is how the Department of Theology at the Angelicum University, Rome should interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial texts. .- Lionel Andrades
The Archdiiocese of Detroit officially uses a fake premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, to create a false rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) and their spokespersons would consider this official deception as being Catholic
The Archdiiocese of Detroit officially uses a fake premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, to create a false rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) and their spokespersons would consider this official deception as being Catholic. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 18, 2021
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'. - Lionel Andrades
JUNE 17, 2021
Bishop Peter Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire like the ecclesiastics at the CDF,Vatican are dishonest in public
It fell to de Laire as judicial vicar to reinforce a Vatican decree that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary could not present themselves as Catholic. According to the lawsuit, this resulted in "several articles [at Church Militant] not only criticizing the Diocese's decision to issue the Decree, but defaming Father de Laire, personally."
The traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire, USA are still being told that they are not Catholic since they do not interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with the common irrationality, the false premise, used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican and the bishop and Curia of the Diocese of Manchester, USA.The use of the false premise to interpret Church documents and then project an alleged rupture with Tradition, is dishonest and unethical.
If Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican, would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise he would be called an ‘extremist’ by the Leftist media.Since without the false premise, the Council would be dogmatic. It would affirm the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,GS 22 etc would not be exceptions, as, it is wrongly interpreted by the CDF today.
Similarly when Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of Manchester and Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, interpret Vatican Council II , the Creeds,Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise, that they avoid being labelled traditionalists, extremists etc.
Presently Bishop Lbasci and Fr. Georges de Laire, like the ecclesiastics at the CDF, Vatican, are publically dishonest and are defaming the SBC.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-peter-libasci-and-fr-georges-de.html
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'. - Lionel Andrades
JUNE 17, 2021
Bishop Peter Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire like the ecclesiastics at the CDF,Vatican are dishonest in public
It fell to de Laire as judicial vicar to reinforce a Vatican decree that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary could not present themselves as Catholic. According to the lawsuit, this resulted in "several articles [at Church Militant] not only criticizing the Diocese's decision to issue the Decree, but defaming Father de Laire, personally."
The traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire, USA are still being told that they are not Catholic since they do not interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with the common irrationality, the false premise, used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican and the bishop and Curia of the Diocese of Manchester, USA.The use of the false premise to interpret Church documents and then project an alleged rupture with Tradition, is dishonest and unethical.
If Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican, would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise he would be called an ‘extremist’ by the Leftist media.Since without the false premise, the Council would be dogmatic. It would affirm the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,GS 22 etc would not be exceptions, as, it is wrongly interpreted by the CDF today.
Similarly when Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of Manchester and Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, interpret Vatican Council II , the Creeds,Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise, that they avoid being labelled traditionalists, extremists etc.
Presently Bishop Lbasci and Fr. Georges de Laire, like the ecclesiastics at the CDF, Vatican, are publically dishonest and are defaming the SBC.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-peter-libasci-and-fr-georges-de.html
Michael Davies' error was never corrected by Cardinal Ratzinger
As Michael Davies rightly remarks, there was corruption among the Catholic clergy at the time of the ‘Reformation’, but the reason why the heretics and schismatics left the Church was not this, but their heterodoxy. ‘There is, therefore no basis whatsoever for an apology by the Catholic Church for the sin of schism when this sin was entirely on the Protestant side. No Catholic, by definition, can ever be in schism or guilty of the sin of schism’ .
One should add that in any case ‘sins of separation’ or of ‘disunity’ cannot be imputed to the Church Who is Holy and Immaculate (as we have explained at the beginning of the essay); nor did She show Herself hostile to dissidents, but only defined and decried their separation by anathemata and excommunications, which, far from being sins, in reality constitute acts of mercy, as calls to the heretic to return to the one and only salvific sheep-fold.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-part-xi.html
Michael Davies, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, did not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a rational premise, inference and conclusion.Now this truth is there before us. He had overlooked the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So he read Vatican Council II with the fake premise like the popes and the liberals.The Council had to contradict the old ecumenism of return for him, This error, of his was not noticed by him all his life and was not corrected by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. -Lionel Andrades
“The Council and the Eclipse of God” Part XI “How the Council jettisoned true Catholic Evangelisation for shallow Ecumenism” by Don Pietro Leone
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-part-xi.html
In my parish the priests and parishioners interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion , so there is no tension for them
In my parish the priests and parishioners interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion , so there is no tension for them. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 17, 2021
There are good priests in my parish but they interpret the Creeds and Magisterial documents irrationally : St. Alphonsus Liguori says do not go up to receive the Eucharist from a priest in public mortal sin
How am I to go up to receive the Eucharist from them ? -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 16, 2021
God is love but Hell exists
The other day at Mass in Italian at the church Santa Maria di Nazareth,Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, the priest said that God has no favorites, he loves everyone. The rain falls on everyone and the sun shines on everyone, "good and bad". Therefore we must love everyone, was his message.
Yes, we must love everyone, but Hell exists and not everyone will go to Heaven. Priests are not allowed to speak of Hell.The Vicariate of Rome and the Vatican have not given them permission. Pope Benedict also forbade seminarians from mentioning Hell.
In the churches of Rome the priests are not allowed to talk about morality, sin and Hell. They had not been allowed, in all these years, to talk about the sins of morality and the sins of faith and lack of faith.
They must also give the Eucharist to all.This would indicate that there are no mortal sins of faith and morals for them. So if someone has a vocation to the religious life in Rome, he would give up,discouraged.He would not become a priest seeing,the general incohrence approved by the political Left for the Catholic Church.
The leftist state decides morals. An Italian carabinieri and diplomat was killed in a third world country a few months ago and he was offered a state funeral Mass. The Mass was held at the Basilica Santa Maria di Angeli, Piazza Repubblica, Rome. Members of the government were present, as well as the victim's non-Christian wife.
This was political. The message was that there is no faith and morals for the leftist government in Italy. The Vicar General of the Vicariate of Rome offered Mass and condoled with all the families, in Italy and abroad. The deceased was in a public mortal sin of faith in public.There was a funeral Mass and it was televised.
In Rome, the government has confiscated churches. They are overseen by a government-approved lay committee, in coordination with the Parish Priest or Rector. There is a plaque on the front door of the churches, saying the church belongs to the government.
The leftist church and the leftist state are not separate for the government. There was no funeral mass for Erich Preibike, who was not in public mortal sin. They did even allow his corpse to be buried or cremated. There is no love for the left. They judge and condemn.There was no forgiveness or love-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 12, 2021
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
