Pour le maintien de la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pierre à Dijon : Appeal to His Excellency Bishop Roland Minnerath, Bishop of Dijon , France on behalf of the Catholics of the diocese

 

Catholics in the diocese of Dijon have petitioned Bishop Roland Minnerath to allow the FSSP priests to remain. There is a video on Youtube and an appeal on Facebook.

I would ask them ( Les amis de la FSSP du diocèse de Dijon lesamisdelabasilique21@gmail.com ) to make this formal appeal to the bishop.Send this appeal to him and make it known in the diocese.

APPEAL TO HIS EXCELLENCY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH, BISHOP OF DIJON, FRANCE 

from Mr.Lionel Andrades for all the Catholics of the diocese and especially the 300 families who want the FSSP priests to return.

On behalf of the 300 families  who attended the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests in Dijon, France, I take this opportunity to  inform you that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) uses a false premise and so cannot be Magisterial. This has a direct connection with the theology of the Holy Mass at Diojon, lex orandi, lex credendi.

So the New Theology also based upon the false premise, and taught in the diocese, is not Magisterial, even though the present two popes support it.

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX or the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation and other religions are not paths to salvation, according to the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q).Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise ( with exceptions) is also not Magisterial.The Council has to be interpreted with the rational premise and in harmony with these Magisterial documents.

Those who went for Holy Mass in Latin with the FSSP priests, call attention to the Athansius Creed, which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.There are no exceptions to the Athanasius Creed mentioned in Vatican Council II, for the Latin laity.The old ecclesiology is not contradicted by Vatican Council II, for them.So the FSSP priests must be praised for their evangelisation to the non Christians.

Since there are no practical exceptions to EENS there is no rational theological basis for the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation and New Ecclesiology.

There is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church for them.Physically, they cannot meet or see someone saved without faith and the baptism of water.In 2021, they cannot meet any one saved outside the Church, as referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc or, the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) mentioned in the LOHO.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pius X affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and there are no exceptions for them.

Vatican Council II affirms the strict interpretation of EENS in Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism for salvation)and there are no exceptions to AG 7 for them.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of EENS ( CCC 855,846,1257) and there are no practical exceptions.

So they would like Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to affirm the old ecclesiology of the Church at the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass. This will be the formal theology of the 300 families at the TLM and the Mass in the vernacular.Religious communties and lay organisations are likely to support them. They would know that Bishop Minnerath has written a book  Le droit de l'Eglise à la liberté. Du Syllabus à Vatican II, Paris, Beauchesne, 1982 ( The right of the Church to liberty. From the Syllabus to Vatican II, Paris, Beauchesne, 1982) in which he has made a factual error. He has used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and create a false rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

The same objective mistake is there in his book Le Syllabus de Pie IX. En collaboration: Paul Christophe. Préface de Mgr Dagens, Cerf, Paris 2000 ( The Syllabus of Pius IX. In collaboration: Paul Christophe. Preface by Mgr Dagens, Cerf, Paris 2000 ).A correction and clarification is expected from the bishop.  -Lionel Andrades

JUNE 24, 2021

When I say that Catechists should teach that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics I am following the theology of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally

 When I say that Catechists should teach that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics I am following the theology of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally.There cannot be a New Theology with a false premise.It could not be Magisterial. There cannot be a development of doctrine with a false premise.It cannot be Magisterial. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston cannot be Magisterial. It uses a false premise. - Lionel Andrades

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

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.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@gmail.com

___________________

In my parish there is no unity on the First Commandment, the interpretation of the Nicene Creed is different and the Athanasius Creed is rejected : under these conditions I have to go up to receive the Eucharist

 In my priests and catechists interpret unknown cases of the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) as being known exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So they cannot say outside the Church there is no salvation and I have to go up to them to receive the Eucharist at Holy Mass.

The priests and parishioners interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion , so there is no tension for them.

The Joseleitos Christo and Franciscans of the Immaculate priests would be saying the same thing as Lionel Andrades on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)but for the false premise( invisible cases of BOD and I.I are visible)which the priests utilise, to create a non traditional conclusion (EENS, Athanasius Creed etc are obsolete).

They cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This is first class heresy and a public mortal sin. They do not deny it.

For me the Nicene Creeds says, "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins".It is a reference to the baptism of water. I do not any one saved with the BOD or I.I.I do not know of any one saved outside the Church without faith and the baptism of water.

So our understanding of the Nicene Creed is different.

Without recanting and correcting themselves they offer Mass as normal. Since the error is common in the whole diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Rome.Priests are expected to affirm the Creeds.

side from the Athanasius Creed there is a problem also with the Nicene Creed.For me the Nicene Creed says “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”,it is a reference to the baptism of water.I don’t know of any one saved with the BOD or I.I.

I don’t know of any one saved outside the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water.

But for the priests, catechists and parishioners of Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti,Boccea,Rome,the Nicene Creeds really says, « I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, desire, blood , invincible ignorance etc and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( and so there are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them).So the understanding of the Nicene Creeds has been changed. This is public mortal sin.

The parish’s understanding of the Nicene Creed and my understanding is different.So our Profession of Faith at Holy Mass would also be different.And I have to go up to receive the Eucharist at Mass without them recanting and correcting the error, which is common in this diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, now under the administration of the Archbishop of Civitavecchia and the Vatican.

Priests and lay people are expected to affirm the Creeds without any innovation.

With BOD and I.I referring to visible people saved outside the Church( and so there is alleged known salvation outside the Church) the First Commandment is different today for Catholics.It means that there is not only true worship in the Catholic Church but also in other religions which have false worship and idols.

St.Alphonsus Liguori, father of Moral Theology says that if there is a priest in public mortal sin do not go up to receive the Eucharist from him. Since if you do so you would be telling him all is well even though his soul is oriented to Hell. St. Alphonsus says that if there is no other means to fulfill your Sunday obligation, then go up to him to receive the Eucharist at Mass ( Teologia Moralis, Bk.3,N.46).In my parish, like the rest of the diocese, the priests interpret the Creeds irrationally since it is politically correct with the Left and the Vatican.They reject the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors with the same false premise. Then they interpret the Catechisms and Vatican Council II with the same false premise creating a false rupture with Tradition(EENS etc).-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 5, 2021

Catholic priests agree with me on five points but will not proclaim them in public

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/catholic-priests-agree-with-me-on-five.html

 JUNE 8, 2021

These two religious communities agree with me but they are not proclaiming the faith in public

 

The Joselitos Christo and Franciscans of Immaculate priests agree with me on the FIVE POINTS. But they are not affirming Vatican Council II without the false premise.Since it would mean that they affirm the Athanasius Creed, 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

These two religious communities agree with me but  they are not proclaiming the faith in public. - Lionel Andrades

 JUNE 5, 2021

Catholic priests in the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Rome agree with me on five points

In the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, near the Battistini Metro Station, there have been two religious communities housed there, the Joseleitos Christo and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.This is also the parish of Lionel Andrades according to his blog Eucharist and Mission( Lionel's Blog).The religious communities there agree with him on the following five points.

1.They agree that there are no physically visible cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire over the last 60 years in Italy.If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.

2.They agree that there are no physically visible non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water over the last 60 years in Italy.If any one was saved as such it would be known only to God.

3.The priests of the two religious communities agree with Lionel Andrades when he says that we do not know of any one in the present times who is saved as a martyr(baptism of blood)and without the baptism of water.If St.Emerentiana or Dismas, the Good Thief, was saved without the baptism of water,we do not know of any such case over the last few years or more in Italy.

4.So the baptism of desire,baptism of blood and invincible ignorance cannot be practical examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.They cannot be practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed.It says outside the Church there is no salvation.They cannot be practical exceptions for Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation(to avoid Hell).

The Catholic priests agree on this point too.

5.So there can be nothing in Vatican Council II ( interpreted rationally) to contradict the Athanasius Creed and Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, can refer to only hypothetical cases.They are speculative. They are not practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Cantate Domino, Council of florence 1441 etc).

None of these FIVE POINTS are denied by the religious communities Joseleitos Christo and the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth.This is the parish in which Pope Francis closed down the seminary of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.-Lionel Andrades

 JUNE 4, 2021

They agree with me : A Catholic should be elected Mayor of Rome : Vatican Council II must be the test of being a Catholic

 The priests of the Joseleitos de Christo community at the church Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, in principle agree that there are no objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2021.There are no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the present times (1965-2021).There are no physically visible cases of non Catholics, saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.We cannot see or meet someone who is an exception to the norm for salvation i.e faith and baptism (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).This was also the view of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, who were last year in this parish. They too agree with me.The Rector of Francisican Friar seminary in the parish was Fr. Rosario Sammarco f.i and Parish Priest, Fr.Giuseppe Grioni f.i.The seminary is closed and the building is under the management of the Comitato dell Immaculata, set up originally by Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i.

In the parish today the Parish Priest Fr.Francisco  De Barros Barbosa, sjc in public interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. If he did not use the false premise, Vatican Council II (AG 7) would affirm the past ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church, an exclusivist ecclesiology, the old traditional theology of outside the Church there is no salvation and the need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all national politics in Italy.

However he agrees with me - there are no objective exceptions to EENS. There are no physically visible cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.

The priests of the Joseleitos di Christo and Franciscans of the Immaculate need to tell Catholics and especially parishioners, to vote only for candidates for the Mayor's office in Rome, who interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.They would be true Catholics. With Vatican Council II ( rational) they would be affirming EENS.So based upon EENS they could proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King ( Quas Primas ) in all political legislation.Since outside the Church there is no known salvation the priority is that all accept the norm for salvation-faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell.

We all agree that if there was any one saved outside the Catholic Church it could only be known to God.So Catholic faith and the baptism of water is still the norm and the priority to go to Heaven and avoid Hell for all people with no known exceptions.-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 3, 2021

In my parish the priests interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally even after being informed.

 In my parish the priests interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally even after being informed.The traditional conclusion of the Council, interpreted without the false premise is too much for them. - Lionel Andrades

JUNE 2, 2021

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/

JUNE 24, 2021

When I say that Catechists should teach that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics I am following the theology of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally

 When I say that Catechists should teach that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics I am following the theology of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally.There cannot be a New Theology with a false premise.It could not be Magisterial. There cannot be a development of doctrine with a false premise.It cannot be Magisterial. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston cannot be Magisterial. It uses a false premise. - Lionel Andrades

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

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.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@gmail.com

___________________