Sunday, June 27, 2021

Pope Pius XII after World War II allowed division to come into the Catholic Church


Pope Pius XII after World War II allowed division to come into the Catholic Church.

The Magisterium of the Church over the centuries did not use the false premise.They knew that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I)  referred to invisible and hypothetical cases only. This is something obvious.They are always hypothetical and invisible. They can only be speculative.


So the past Magisterium, like in the 16th century, did not project BOD, BOB and I.I as being practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),which had no exceptions,for them.

It was Pope Pius XII, after World War II and the creation of the state of Israel, who allowed BOD, BOB and I.I to be projected as practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.


This was an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which he allowed to pass. He did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney in public.



Pope John XXIII also ignored the error.

LOHO was placed in the Denzinger and cited at Vatican Council II(LG 16) and Pope Paul VI let it pass.

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger maintained the error.So the LOHO cannot be Magisterial since it is based upon a false premise.It brought division into the Church and it was supported by the Left.-Lionel Andrades



https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/it-was-pope-pius-xii-who-after-world.html


The Profession of Faith of Msgr. Nicola Bux is different from mine at every Mass in any Rite.So how can there be unity ?

Msgr.Nicola Bux has interpreted all Magisterial documents with a false premise and he says that the Mass in Latin, with the new ecclesiology could contribute towards unity in the Church. The sensus fidei for him is interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, instead of a rational one, and then accepting the non traditional conclusion, as being the fault of the Council, and not his irrationality.He blames the Council instead of himself.

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificium did not state that the Latin Mass had to be offered with the past ecclesiology of the Church.The Latin Mass could be offered with the past ecclesiology when Vatican Council II, EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc are not interpreted with the false premise.

 We go back to Tradition when Vatican Council II is interpreted without the false premise.So there would be no exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.But this is not how Msgr. Bux and the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II.

Over the last 13 years or so there has been no doctrinal unity in the Church since Mons. Bux like Archbishop Lefebvre interprets Magisterial documents with a false premise to create a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church,over the centuries, on exclusive salvation.Summorum Pontificum did not create unity.Those who attend the Novus Ordo Mass still interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition, just like the FSSP and the SSPX.

In the past there was the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. Today it has exceptions.

In the past there was the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with no exceptions. Today there are exceptions for Msgr. Bux.

In the past there was the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions. Today the traditionalists say that not every one needs Catholic faith for salvation. 

So the Profession of Faith of Msgr. Bux is different from mine at every  Mass in any Rite.So how can there be unity ?- Lionel Andrades


Intervista a mons. Nicola Bux: «Messa in latino, contributo all’unità dei cristiani»

http://blog.messainlatino.it/2021/06/intervista-mons-nicola-bux-messa-in.html#more

So if Pope Benedict and Pope Francis did not confuse the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being visible cases in 1949-2021, they would be saying the same thing as me

 Even the non Christians in Rome would agree when I say that unknown cases of being saved with the desire for baptism of someone who dies before he receives the baptism of water, are unknown. They are not physically visible.

They would also agree with me when I say that invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance without Catholic faith and the baptism of water, are not objective cases in 2021.We cannot meet or see them. They could only be known to God.

The non Christian would agree that these cases do not exist in our reality.So they cannot be seen as practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

So the Catholic Church still teaches in Vatican Council II and after Vatican Council II, that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Everyone needs to be Catholic is the norm and speculative cases are not physically visible even a non Christian would agree.

So if Pope Benedict and Pope Francis did not confuse the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being visible cases in 1949-2021, they would be saying the same thing as me.-Lionel Andrades 

Rahner,Ratzinger,Cushing, Murray and the others brought division into the Church when they kept interpreting Magisterial documents with a false premise and ignored the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO)

 Rahner,Ratzinger,Cushing, Murray and the others brought division into the Church when they kept interpreting Magisterial documents with a false premise and ignored the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican (Holy Office 1949) made a mistake in the LOHO and the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.

We now know that unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, historically and in reality today, could not be known and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The LOHO was irrational and so was the CDF.Yet even today upon this irrationality the New Theology flourishes.



Now a Decree of Prohibitions has been issued by the CDF and the Diocese of Manchester, USA.

According to the diocesan website, Brother Andre Marie MICM, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA must invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance (CCC 847-848)as being visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.


This is irrational and not Magisterial.

It maintains the division in the Church and the theological legitimacy for the liberals and progressivists.

-Lionel Andrades

Harpa Dei

TB Joshua allegedly transforms ‘woman’ to man (photos). Man opens himself to impure woman spirit.Deliverance was needed

 




SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2021

Cardinal Parolin did not tell Prime Minister Draghi that homosexual acts are mortal sins which take a person to Hell for all eternity is the teaching of the Catholic Church : Official transgenderism is creating an opening for impure spirits

 
Cardinal Parolin did not tell Prime Minister Draghi that homosexual acts are mortal sins which take a person to Hell for all eternity is the teaching of the Catholic Church. So Italy is not just a secular  state but becomes a Satanic one. 
Through excorcism by the Church the individual problem is resolved. The Leftist government needs to 'come out' with the truth. Transgenderism allows impure spirits of the opposite sex to get attached to a person's soul. So this is not a secular issue but a religious and spiritual one. - Lionel Andrades

Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a fake premise just like Prof. Roberto dei Mattei of the Lepanto Institute and Bishop Athanasius Schnedier.

Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a fake premise just like Prof. Roberto dei Mattei of the Lepanto Institute and Bishop Athanasius Schnedier. 
The professor is politically correct with the Left and so can hold conferences and publish books. 
If he  and Bishop Athanasius Schneider interpreted  Vatican Council II with the false premise they would be affirming 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They would be saying that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell with no known exceptions. Presently there are exceptions for Mattei and Lefebvrists.
This is also the liberal/progressivist theological position.It seems as if Mattei is following the money and not the faith. -Lionel Andrades


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 )
___________________

JUNE 26, 2021

Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Diana Montagna were politically correct with the Left in Trent. They interpreted Vatican Council II like the progressivists and said that they accept the Council


On this video at the timer 1:35.00 Bishop Athanasius Schneider is asked about Vatican Council II  and he suggests that the Council interpreted with the false premise should not be rejected, this false version should be accepted. He accepts Vatican Council II as a pastoral Council. For him it is not a dogmatic Council in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). 
He does not say that the Council  can be interpreted without the false premise which he uses. Instead he continues to interpret the Council like the progressivists, who are referred to by a lady, who asks a question.
So Bishop Schneider still interprets the Council with LG  16 referring to a physically visible case of a non Catholic saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water. They are not invisible cases for him. He follows the liberals and the popes on this issue.
Also the baptism of desire(LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are personally known  and physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. So they become objective exceptions to the dogma EENS for him. He interprets EENS and BOD and I.I like Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvre. 
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) which he accepts, like the popes and the progressivists, wrongly assumed unknown cases of BOD and I.I, as being known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. The use of the false premise cannot be Magisterial. The LOHO cannot be Magisterial even though the popes and the Left support it.
Diana Montagna concludes by saying that it is Christ who is important.But how do we come to Christ with the theology of the LOHO and Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally or the past Magisterium which did not use the false premise to interpret EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc.Our concept of Church would also be different. She would be a liberal.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Diana Montagna were politically correct with the Left in Trent. They interpreted Vatican Council II like the progressivists and said that they accept the Council. Instead they had to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and then say that they accept the Council, which would not have any exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q).-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider-and-diana.html
_____________________________



Great Apostasy Conference Day 1


JUNE 20, 2021

The Lepanto Institute to stay within Leftist laws is not interpreting Vatican Council II with the rational premise and traditional conclusion

 The Lepanto Institute to stay within Leftist laws is not interpreting Vatican Council II with the rational premise and traditional conclusion.Instead like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davious and others  Roberto dei Mattei interprets the Council with the false premise to create a rupture with Tradition and so is politically correct with the Left. - Lionel Andrades







JUNE 19, 2021

Lepanto Foundation Great Apostasy Conference will affirm the errors in the Church : most of the speakers are part of the apostasy

 


The Lepanto Foundation have announced a conference on the Great Apostasy when the speakers are part of the general apostasy in the Church. They do not affirm the Catholic faith when they use a false premise to re-interpret Catholic dogma and doctrines. So there is a new version of the Creeds, Catechisms, Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.This is approved by the Left.

It is good to see that the Lepanto Foundation have invited Brother Andre Marie MICM, to be part of this conference.

He will present the introduction.There will be talks on the signs of the times, the end times for me.In many of Our Lady's apparitions she has said that we are in the end times. The apparitions to the Brazilian seer have ended. He has died. While the monthly apparitions to Marjiana at Medugorje have also been stopped. Her predictions to the late Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests are also becoming clearer.

But the speakers Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and others are part of the great apostasy, when they do not affirm the faith or permit heresy and apostasy, to protect their personal reputation, career etc.

Brother Andre Marie interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) without the false premise.But this cannot be said of the others, nor Roberto dei Mattei and the Lepanto Foundation.Instead they have been consistently denying the Faith on Vatican Council II.

John Henry Weston one of the speakers interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise so there is a rupture with the Creeds.This is the official and prudent policy of Life Site News. The Athanasius Creed has to be rejected and the understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed changed for him. So his Profession of Fatih is different.Changing the meaning of the Creeds is modernism.It is not enough to recite the Creed at Holy Mass I have mentioned this in a previous blog post.His recitation of the Oath Against Modernism would be meaningless.

All this is part of the apostasy in the Catholic Church which was promoted by the liberals but now even conservaties like Weston and Kwasniewski.  

John Henry Weston, Peter Kwasnewski and others would have nothing relevant to say in this time of apostasy, since they do not affirm the Faith on sensitive subjects. They set an  example for others, of putting personal interests before that of Jesus and His Church.

The three-day event does not address the subject of Vatican Council II and the ability to interpret it with a rational premise, inference and conclusion.In this way it is no more a rupture with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athansius Creed ( with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors ( with no known exceptions).

These three Church documents are not affirmed in this way by Roberto dei Mattei, Peter Kwasniewksi and others. They are known for wanting to deny the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries of the 16th century. They choose to interpret it like Pope Benedict and the liberals at Vatican Council II- but also like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Lefebvrists choose to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which made an objective mistake which was over looked by Archbishop Lefebvre and also Pope Pius XII.The popes who followed also over looked the mistake bringing in a great apostasy within the Church. With there being alleged known salvation outside the Catholic Church, there emerged a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law etc, which is apostasy in the Catholic Church.

Other Lefebvrists, not invited to speak this month, like Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt, have chosen not to affirm the Faith, on their media.They prefer to interpret Magisterial documents with the politically correct Cushingite New theology instead of the old Feeneyite theology.

So even though they call themselves traditionalists or conservatives, they  interpret the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechisms of Trent and Pope Paul X, with the common false premise of the liberals. So they say they are orthodox when in reality they use the same false New Theology of the liberals, working for a One World Religion, without the teachings of the Catholic Church.So the Lepanto Foundation is not expected to affirm the Faith on this sensitive issue instead they will tell many Catholics what they already know, and so continue with the common doctrinal and theological errors in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/lepanto-foundation-great-apostasy.html

JUNE 9, 2018

Lepanto Foundation conference this month in Rome is expected to be another non committal, prudent meeting among friends : the real problem and its solution is too sensitive for them to discuss and proclaim  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/lepanto-foundation-conference-his-month.html
MAY 27, 2018

Liberals cannot criticize Cardinal Raymond Burke since he accepts Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite),in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite),the Syllabus of Errors,an ecumenism and the Social Reign of Christ the King : traditionalists at conf. next month support the New Theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/05/liberals-cannot-accuse-cardinal-raymond.html
__________________________
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lepanto-institute-to-stay-within.html



Bishop Roland Minnerath made an error in two books which he wrote on Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors

 


Bishop Roland Minnerath needs to tell the non Christians in his diocese that Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation ( Ad Gentes 7-all need faith and baptism for salvation) and there are no practical exceptions to Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors , Catechism of Pope Pius X etc) mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally.So he made an error in two books which he wrote on Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors.

 Bishop Roland Minnerath wrote books and articles for journals and reviews, one of which is published by Cambridge University, U.K.He unknowingly used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. The same error in theology is made by the FSSP and the lay families, who attened the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP. The New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger is based on the false premise and even the traditionalists and conservative Catholics use it to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.- Lionel Andrades



JUNE 26, 2021

The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion

 The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion. - Lionel Andrades

UNE 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 )
___________________