I laici, se hanno un altro incontro con il Vescovo Roland Minnerath, devono capire che il punto debole di liberale vescovo e la teologia. Il vero problema per lui e per gli presente due papi non e la Messa ma la vecchia teologia, il vecchio ecclesiocentrismo

 

I laici, se hanno un altro incontro con il vescovo Roland Minnerath, devono capire che il punto debole del vescovo liberale è la teologia. Il vero problema per lui, e per gli presente due papi, non è la Messa ma la vecchia teologia, il vecchio ecclesiocentrismo. I sacerdoti della FSSP, si schiudono dal Concilio Vaticano II interpretato con una falsa premessa e tornano alle fonti della Tradizione Questo è il vero problema per il vescovo e per la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (CDF).
1. I laici devono sapere che si possono avere due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II, una con la premessa irrazionale e l'altra senza. Possono scegliere l'interpretazione CDF del Concilio Vaticano II o quella di Lionel Andrades, senza l'irrazionalità.
2. Ci possono essere anche due interpretazioni del battesimo di desiderio (BOD), battesimo di sangue (BOB) e ignoranza invincibile (I.I). Uno, in cui BOD, BOB e II sono visti come persone fisicamente visibili salvate fuori dalla Chiesa nel 2021, o, come casi solo ipotetici e teorici, che non esistono nella nostra realtà. Quindi l'interpretazione di BOD, BOB e II è razionale e l'altro è irrazionale. Anche in questo caso i laici devono scegliere tra le interpretazioni dei papi o Lionel Andrades. Loro, ovviamente, devono scegliere l'opzione razionale e chiedere al vescovo di fare lo stesso.
Questo deve essere chiaro.

Perché significa che a Messa in latino, francese o quella degli orientali, la teologia; l'ecclesiologia di tutti gli aspetti della Chiesa sarà tradizionale. Non vi sarà alcuna rottura con l'interpretazione esclusivista dell'extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) di p. Leonard Feeney, o il Credo di Atanasio che dice che tutti hanno bisogno della fede cattolica per la salvezza o il Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX. Ciò significa che i Catechismi del Concilio di Trento e di Pio X non si contraddiranno, quando l'interpretazione rigorosa di EENS è supportato insieme a casi ipotetici di BOD, BOB e II.

LA TEOLOGIA PRIMA E DOPO CONCILIO VATICANO II E TRADIZIONALE E COERENTE NELLA CHIESA
Essendo la teologia della Chiesa, prima e dopo il Concilio Vaticano II, tradizionale e coerente, si dovrebbe chiedere al vescovo di affermare la fede.
Se rifiuta di affermare pubblicamente il dogma EENS e il Credo di Atanasio e cita il Concilio Vaticano II come uno sviluppo della dottrina, interpreta il Concilio con la falsa premessa.

I cattolici di tutti i riti in Francia dovrebbero essere in grado di affermare il Concilio Vaticano II (razionale) e il Credo di Atanasio (razionale, senza eccezioni note).
Se il vescovo afferma il Concilio Vaticano II e il Credo di Atanasio con eccezioni, significa che sta usando la premessa falsa, e dovrebbe essere verificato qui.
Se i laici recitano il Credo degli Apostoli o il Credo di Nicea nella Messa, in una Professione di Fede, non ha senso, se interpretano i Simboli con la falsa premessa anziché senza di essa. Se interpretano il BOD, BOB e II con la falsa premessa, quindi cambiano davvero l'interpretazione di questi due Credi. Un'interpretazione è razionale e tradizionale e l'altra è irrazionale e una rottura con la Tradizione.

Allo stesso modo se si affermano i Quattro Marchi della Chiesa (uno, santo, cattolico e apostolico), può essere privo di significato e fuorviante, se non si fa distinzione tra la premessa falsa e quella razionale. Poiché con la premessa la conclusione differisce. i laici dovranno spesso scegliere tra l'interpretazione del vescovo Minnerath e quella di Lionel Andrades.
Bisogna ricordare che il punto debole del vescovo è la teologia. Deve usare la falsa premessa per sostenere il suo liberalismo, “la teologia delle religioni”.

OGGI LA ERESIA DI FALSA PREMESSA E COME L’ERESIA ARIANA DEL PASSATO

I laici ei sacerdoti della FSSP devono sapere che come in passato c'era l'eresia Ariana nella Chiesa, oggi c'è l'eresia della falsa premessa. È come un virus teologico che è diventato un'epidemia spirituale nella Chiesa.
Quindi, quando concelebreranno la messa a Digione, o altrove in Francia, il sacerdote diocesano non sarà un tradizionalista, poiché interpreta il Concilio Vaticano II e altri documenti della Chiesa, con la falsa premessa, che produce una conclusione non tradizionale.
Poi a causa delle leggi di sinistra il vescovo Roland Minnerath potrebbe voler interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II ei documenti del Magistero con la falsa premessa. Non c'è tensione o persecuzione.

SACERDOTI DIOCESANTI E VESCOVO SONO IN UNA ‘SITUAZIONE IRREGOLARE’

La FSSP dovrà celebrare la Messa con i sacerdoti diocesani e il Vescovo Minnerath che si trovano in una “situazione irregolare”. La falsa premessa li pone in scisma con il Magistero passato nei secoli e in eresia di prim'ordine con i Simboli.

Quando scelgono l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II, non è qualcosa che si conosceva nella Chiesa. L'innovazione e la novità sono entrate nella Chiesa con la falsa premessa, inferenza e conclusione. Io la identifico e indico la premessa e l'inferenza originali che era responsabile della conclusione tradizionale.
Poiché al di fuori della Chiesa non c'è salvezza secondo il Concilio Vaticano II, i laici a Digione hanno bisogno di un'organizzazione o di un ufficio per proclamare il Regno sociale di Cristo Re, nella politica francese. Secondo il Concilio Vaticano II l'appartenenza alla Chiesa cattolica è necessaria per evitare l'Inferno ( Ad gentes 7- tutti hanno bisogno della fede e del battesimo per la salvezza). Potrebbero chiamare questa organizzazione Solo la Chiesa Cattolica, che fino ad ora è solo uno slogan.

PROCLAMERANNO IL REGNO SOCIALE DI CRISTO RE SULLA ECCLESIOLOGIA ESCLUSIVA DI CONCILIO VATICANO II

I laici latini potrebbero organizzare candidati a cariche politiche in Francia, che proclameranno il Regno Sociale di Cristo Re in tutta la politica, sulla base dell'esclusiva ecclesiologia del Concilio Vaticano II (interpretato con la premessa razionale) e della Tradizione (Sillabo degli Errori del Papa Pio IX ecc.). Il Concilio Vaticano II non deve più essere visto come una rottura con la concezione tradizionale di Missione, Ecumeismo, Peccato Mortale ecc.

CAMBIA LA PREMESS E SI CAMBIA LA CHIESA.

I laici latini non dovrebbero davvero protestare fuori dall'ufficio del vescovo. Devono semplicemente interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II senza la falsa premessa e saranno i progressivisti che ne saranno sconvolti. Poiché non potrebbe più esserci una catechesi liberale, un programma scout ecc., poiché il Concilio sarà cambiato sotto i loro occhi. Cambia la premessa e si cambia la Chiesa. L'ecclesiologia dipende dalla premessa usata. Allora perché protestare se l'ecclesiologia della Chiesa oggi può essere solo tradizionale? Dov'è la rottura con la collegialità, l'ecumenismo e la libertà religiosa come in passato, quando il Concilio è tradizionale, senza la falsa premessa? Lascia che i liberali vengano fuori dall'ufficio del vescovo con cartelli e striscioni, dicendo: "Non vogliamo interpretare razionalmente VC2. Ridateci la nostra vecchia Chiesa del 1965”.

Una volta consapevoli della falsa premessa, Papa Francesco può creare l'Amazzonia e nuovi riti, perché la Messa e l'ecclesiologia della Chiesa non cambieranno. Sarà sempre la stessa Messa latina tradizionale del XVI secolo.-Lionel Andrades

JULY 2, 2021

The laity if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop's weak point is theology.The real issue for him and the present two popes , is not the Maass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-laity-if-they-have-another-meeting.html

 JULY 1, 2021

Bishop Minnerath takes advantage of the laity's lack of knowledge of theology

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/bishop-minnerath-takes-advantage-of.html

 

The laity if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop's weak point is theology.The real issue for him and the present two popes , is not the Maass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism.

THE LAITY IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH, MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIBERAL BISHOP’S WEAK POINT IS THEOLOGY. THE REAL ISSUE FOR HIM AND THE PRESENT TWO POPES, IS NOT THE MASS BUT THE OLD THEOLOGY, THE OLD ECCLESIOCENTRISM.

The laity, if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop’s weak point is theology. The real issue for him and the present two popes, is not the Mass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism. The FSSP priests, are side stepping Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and are going back to the sources of Tradition This is the real problem for the bishop and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
1.The laity must know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II , one with the irrational premise and the other without it. They can choose the CDF interpretation of Vatican Council II or that of Lionel Andrades, without the irrationality.
2.There can also be two interpretations of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). One, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are seen as physically visible people saved outside the Church in 2021,or, as being only hypothetical and theoretical cases, which do not exist in our reality. So the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is rational and the other is irrational. Again the laity have to choose between the interpretations of the popes or Lionel Andrades. They, of course must choose the rational option and ask the bishop to do the same.
This has to be clear.

For it means that at Mass in Latin, French or that of the Orientals, the theology; the ecclesiology of all aspects of the Church will be traditional. There will be no rupture with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of Fr. Leonard Feeney, or the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. This means that the Catechisms of the Council of Trent and Pius X will not contradict itself, when the strict interpretation of EENS is supported along with hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WILL BE TRADITIONAL AND COHERENT BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II.

With the theology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II, being traditional and coherent, the bishop should be asked to affirm the faith.
If he refuses to affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed in public and cites Vatican Council II as a development of doctrine, he is interpreting the Council with the false premise.

Catholics of all Rites in France should be able to affirm Vatican Council II ( rational) and the Athanasius Creed (rational-with no known exceptions).

If the bishop affirms Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed with exceptions, it means he is using the false premise, and should be checked here.
If the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed is recited by the laity at Mass, in a Profession of Faith, it is meaningless, if they interpret the Creeds with the false premise instead of without it. If they interpret the BOD, BOB and I.I with the false premise, then they really change the interpretation of these two Creeds. One interpretation is rational and traditional and the other is irrational and a break with Tradition.

LAITY WILL OFTEN HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE INTERPRETATIONS WITH THE FALSE PREMISE AND WITHOUT IT SINCE THE CONCLUSION IS DIFFERENT
Similarly if the Four Marks of the Church are affirmed ( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic), it can be meaningless and misleading, if the distinction is not made between the fake and the rational premise. Since with the premise the conclusion differs. So the laity will often have to choose between the interpretation of Bishop Minnerath and Lionel Andrades.
It must be remembered that the bishop’s weak point is theology. He has to use the false premise to support his liberalism, ‘the theology of religions’.

TODAY THE HERESY OF THE FALSE PREMISE IS LIKE THE ARIAN HERESY OF THE PAST

The laity and the FSSP priests must know that like in the past there was the Arian heresy in the Church today there is the heresy of the false premise.It is like a theological virus which has become a spiritual epidemic in the Church.

So when they concelebrate Mass in Dijon, or elsewhere in France, the diocesan priest will not be a traditionalist, since he interprets Vatican Council II and other Church documents , with the false premise, which produces a non traditional conclusion.
Then because of the Leftist laws Bishop Roland Minnerath may want to interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the false premise. There is no tension or persecution.

THE BISHOP AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS ARE IN AN ‘IRREGULAR SITUATION’

The FSSP will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’. The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church. The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise, inference and conclusion.I am identifying it and pointing out the original premise and inference which was responsible for the traditional conclusion.

Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon need an organization or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics. According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organization Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.

WE CAN PROCLAIM THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING BASED UPON THE EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

The Latin laity could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset. Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes. Change your premise and you change the Church. Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Once we are aware of the false premise, Pope Francis can create the Amazon and new rites, for the Mass and the ecclesiology of the Church will not change. It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.-Lionel Andrades

JULY 1, 2021

Bishop Minnerath takes advantage of the laity's lack of knowledge of theology   https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/bishop-minnerath-takes-advantage-of.html

I sacerdoti della FSSP a Roma possono offrire la Messa Latina in quanto interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II con la falsa premessa

 I SACERDOTI DELLA FSSP A ROMA POSSONO OFFRIRE LA MESSA LATINA IN QUANTO INTERPRETANO IL CONCILIO VATICANO II CON LA FALSA PREMESSA

Le autorità ecclesiastiche e laiche a Roma, permettono alla FSSP di offrire la Messa, poiché interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II con la falsa premessa e non senza di essa. Andrei per la Messa in Latino offerta dai sacerdoti della FSSP in una piccola chiesa in un vicolo a Roma. Era più o meno l'epoca in cui fu emesso il Summorum Pontificum. P. Kramer era il rettore.

La FSSP offre ora la Messa in Latino presso la chiesa parrocchiale Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, Roma.
I sacerdoti della FSSP non affermerebbero mai l'interpretazione esclusivista del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) e utilizzerebbero la falsa premessa per interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II. Quindi la loro Messa in Latino con la Nuova Teologia creata dalla falsa premessa, non era proprio la tradizionale Messa latina del XVI secolo con la sua interpretazione esclusivista dell'EENS.

Premessa falsa

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

Inferenza falsa

Sono esempi oggettivi di salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa.

Conclusione falsa

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

Ecco la mia interpretazione del Concilio Vaticano II in blu.

Premessa razionale

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

Inferenza razionale

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

Conclusione razionale

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

JULY 2, 2021

FSSP priests in Rome are allowed to offer the Latin Mass since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/fssp-priests-in-rome-are-allowed-to.html

FSSP priests in Rome are allowed to offer the Latin Mass since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise

 
FSSP PRIESTS IN ROME ARE ALLOWED TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS SINCE THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE FALSE PREMISE.

The FSSP priests are allowed to offer Holy Mass, the ecclesiastics and secular authorities in Rome, since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and not without it.I would go for the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests in a small church in an alley in Rome.It was about the time Summorum Pontificum was issued.Fr.Kramer was the Rector.

The FSSP now offers the Latin Mass at the parish-church Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini, Rome.
The FSSP priests would never affirm the exclusivist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and would use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So their Latin Mass with the New Theology created by the false premise, was not really the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century with its exclusivist interpretation of EENS.

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

http://roma.fssp.it/parrocchia/

JULY 1, 2021

Bishop Minnerath takes advantage of the laity's lack of knowledge of theology

 

Hearing remarks of this nature from the crowd, as well as remarks about canon law, Minnerath asked, “Have you studied theology of any kind? Do you know more about this than I do? So please, do stop … Canon law, I know what that is. If you want to use petty arguments, if you want to continue to be led by the discourse of the fraternity that has a problem … ” -Bishop Roland Minnerath

BISHOP MINNERATH TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE LAITY'S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE

Bishop Minnerath was taking advantage of the laity in Dijon's lack of knowledge of theology and his theological errors. 

The laity in France must note that Bishop Roland Minneraths books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology, Concordats etc are obsolete since he used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, to create a fake rupture with Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, on ecumenism, liberalism, other religions, non separation of Church and State etc.

BISHOP MINNERATH INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND THE LAITY DO NOT KNOW THIS.

He has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion instead of the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the approach by Lionel Andrades.

Vatican Council II is dogmatic for me, it is in harmony with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) but the Council is a rupture with EENS for the bishop.This should be expected,  since he uses the common false premise,to create the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. This is not known to the laity and also the FSSP.

The laity and the FSSP must know that there are 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.

THERE CAN BE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE LAITY DON'T KNOW THIS

It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.

So why should the Catholics in Dijon, choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?

BISHOP MINNERATH MUST NOT CITE VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED WITH A FALSE PREMISE TO REJECT TRADITION

This is the theology that the laity must know and then talk to the bishop about it.

Ask him not to cite Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise, to justify his liberalism.

BISHOP MINNERATH MUST AFFIRM THE ATHANASIUS CREED IN PUBLIC

Ask him to affirm the Athanasius Creed in public.It says all need Catholic faith for salvation. It is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, without the false premise.So he can affirm Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed in public.-Lionel Andrades

French bishop tells faithful protesting departure of FSSP from their diocese that their priests must concelebrate the Novus Ordo    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-bishops-tells-faithful-protesting-departure-of-fssp-from-their-diocese-that-their-priests-must-concelebrate-the-novus-ordo

______________________

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- - 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

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

___________________