Sunday, August 8, 2021

The Jesuit magazine America in this video hides information on Vatican Council II. There are two interpretations of the Council. This is not mentioned.The irrational version has to be accepted by all priests in all Rites including Novus Ordo to receive permission to offer Holy Mass.

The Jesuit magazine America  in this video is hiding information on Vatican Council II. There are two interpretations of the Council. This is not mentioned.The irrational version has to be accepted by all priests in all Rites including Novus Ordo to receive permission to offer Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades



AUGUST 1, 2013

THERE ARE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IN FORCE BUT THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE RATIONAL ONE

 
There is a comment on this blog.It is regarding the post  in which I said there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
 
It says:
Well, this is your interpretation, and you are entitled to it.
-J Daniels
August 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Delete
Lionel:
No it is not a personal interpretation.

I am pointing out that one can choose to interpret Vatican Council II by using a particular premise or without that premise. In this way there are always two interpretations.
It has nothing to do with me or my views.

It is the same text for all but it can be interpreted with the Richard Cushing Error or without it.

Assume  the dead now saved in Heaven are visible to us on earth and so are an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or assume  that they are not visible to us and so are not exceptions. This is independent of me.

So assume LG 16 refers to being saved in invincible ignorance which is visible or it refers to cases not visible to us and so which are not an exception to the dogmatic teaching which says all need to convert into the Church.So there can be two interpretations but only one rational one.

There are presently two interpretations since most Catholics,including the Vatican Curia are using the irrational one, they can allegedly see the dead.
-Lionel Andrades
  
Delete
 

There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II Lumen Fidei has chosen the irrational one.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/there-can-be-two-interpretations-of.html#links

Archbishop Gerhard Muller says that the SSPX needs to distinguish the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council: but he will not correct Reuters.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/archbishop-gerhard-muller-says-that.html#links
   

MEDUGORJE BANS BOOK IN WHICH JESUS SAYS CHURCH IS NEGLECTING MISSION AND PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL TO PROTECT ITS PROPERTY AND INTERESTS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/10/medugorje-bans-book-in-which-jesus-says.html#links
 

IS THE HOLY SPIRIT SAYING LIKE ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA THAT LG 8, LG 16 ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN AND ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/is-holy-spirit-saying-like-archbishop.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-was-in.html#links

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021

The center right political parties could object to the moto proprio of Pope Francis, Spiritus Domini, which Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj justifies with Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise

 The slogan for the political parties in Italy could be Only the Catholic Church (Solamente la Chiesa Cattolica ).Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and so Jesus as he is known in the Catholic Church must be the center of all political legislation. Jesus must not only be the center of our personal life but also the center of national politics.

Vatican Council II without the false premise says that in Heaven there are only Catholics who are there with faith and the baptism of water. So society should become Catholic for all or most people to go to Heaven and avoid the fires of Hell.

Vatican Council II also says that Catholics are the new people of God ( Nostra Aetate 4).

Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church must be the center of the manifesto of the Italian Catholic political parties. The Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church does not change even when the popes change and teach innovation in doctrine and theology.

The ethos of the center right political parties in Italy, and the Government in a Catholic confessional state must be Catholic. There could be an open ness and tolerance for people of other religions , but with certain conditions, like in the times of the papal states.

The political parties in Italy must reject its Cushingite theology which is also the theology of the present two popes. The present two popes want a separation of Church and State and so have to use Cushingite theology.

The political parties must correct the theology of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and affirm Feeneyite theology. They must affirm a Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Church documents ( Creeds, Catechisms etc).

Jesus in the Catholic Church, in harmony with Vatican Council II, interpreted with Feeneyism must be the center of politics, for the political parties. Jesus must not be restricted to only the church buildings.

Catholics need to know that other religions are false paths to salvation( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus etc).

It is a mortal sin when a Catholic does not vote for a Catholic political party that supports the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and instead votes for a party, which supports abortion and gay marriages.

Matteo Salvini, Roberto dei Fiori and Fabrizio Lastei could easily adapt to what I have written here, after they interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.

Since based upon outside the Chuch there being no salvation; no known salvation, that they can proclaim Christ as King and the Social Reign of Christ the King, in all politics, in Italy, with the non separation of Church and State.

So they can appeal to the people to vote, to maintain Jesus as the center of politics. In this way they work for the salvation of the souls of Catholics, from going to Hell.

Matteo Salvini for example, and other politicians, need to correct Pope Francis. They need to tell Pope Francis to teach Catholics the truth about the faith, on Vatican Council II interpreted rationally( without the false premise)which supports Catholic Tradition.

Salvini must not accept the theolohical interpretation of the progressivists and the Left, on Vatican Council II. This interpretation is a human interpretation with an objective error.It uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II. Pope Francis and the Left deliberately, in their interpretation of Vatican Council II, create a rupture with  St. Francis of Assisi, St.Catherine of Siena, St.Albert the Great, St. Maximillian Kolbe, Padre Pio etc.Catholics have a human right to follow their religion with truth and honesty.

The center right political parties could object to the moto proprio of Pope Francis, Spiritus Domini, which Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj  justifies with Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise.

It is only with this duplicity that a rupture can be created with the historical theology of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is fraud. It is unethical and not in the tradition of the popes.

The political parties need to announce that Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise indicates that there is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2021.There are no known cases of non Catholics saved without the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. There are no known cases of non Catholics saved without faith and baptism in 2021.

The present Creed is not a sign of unity in the Catholic Church since there are two interpretations. One is rational and the other is irrational. 

The present two popes follow the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.So a false rupture is created with the popes and saints of the past.

The present two popes for political reasons are supporting heresy and schism and the members of the political parties of the centre right are following them. All the dioceses and parishes in Italy are following the same error.

The same problem exists with also the Nicene Creed.

We have two interpretations of the Nicene Creed-mine and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the SSPX, F.I, FSSP etc.  We have two interpretations of the Nicene Creed. There is my interpretation and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the SSPX, F.I, FSSP etc. The Nicene Creed. says ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.For me it refers to one  known baptism, the baptism of water.-Lionel Andrades 


MARCH 9, 2021



Il Credo non sono più un segno di unità nella Chiesa poiché possono esserci due interpretazioni

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/03/il-credo-non-sono-piu-n-segno-di-unita.html

 



MARCH 9, 2021



The Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Catholic Church since there can be two interpretations.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-creeds-are-no-more-sign-of-unity-in.html


 MARCH 10, 2021

We have two interpretations of the Nicene Creed-mine and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the SSPX, F.I, FSSP etc. We have two interpretations of the Nicene Creed. There is my interpretation and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the SSPX, F.I, FSSP etc. The Nicene Creed. says ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.For me it refers to one known baptism, the baptism of water.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/03/october-18-2018-we-have-two.html



MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2021

Bishop Robert Barron knows that there can be two interpretations of Vatcan Council II and both the interpretations cannot be Magisterial at the same time. He knows that the interpretation of the Council by the popes and Massimo Faggioli are irrational and the rupture with Tradition is artificial.But he and Faggioli do not want to mention it in their articles and talks

 


 In recent months, some bishops and clerics have tried to advance a theologically defensible conservative interpretation of Vatican II, something to counter the extremist views of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and a group of like-minded quasi-schismatics, who in addition to rejecting the “Bergolian” magisterium have taken a position that’s hard to distinguish from pure and simple rejection of the council’s teachings. Bishop Robert Barron, for example, has spoken of attacks on Vatican II as a “disturbing trend,” and Thomas Weinandy, former executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the USCCB, has chastised Viganò for challenging the council’s authenticity.-  Massimo Faggioli, The Remains of Vatican II,Commonweal

Massimo Faggioli is still hiding the truth. There can be two interpretations of the Council , one with a rational premise and the other without it and the conclusion of the Council will be different.I have mentioned this before to him and he has not contradicted me.But he does not want to discuss it.Similarly Bishop Robert Barron knows that there can be two interpretations of Vatcan Council II and both the interpretations cannot be Magisterial at the same time. He knows that the interpretation of the Council by the popes and Massimo Faggioli are irrational and the rupture with Tradition is artificial.But he and Faggioli do not want to mention it in their articles and talks . -Lionel Andrades


The Remains of Vatican II

Why is the reception of the council still an issue?
By Massimo Faggioli
March 2, 2021

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/remains-vatican-ii


___________________________________________


 JUNE 14, 2021

Vatican Council II is dogmatic. This point has not been touched by Archbishop Vigano, Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler.

 ... Archbishop Viganò accepts the validity of the Second Vatican Council. Such clarity dramatically reduces the need for me to explain the extent to which I agree or disagree with him on other aspects of the case, because every Catholic: (a) Must accept the validity of an ecumenical council, including everything it teaches explicitly on faith or morals; but (b) Can still have his or her own opinion about the wisdom of particular pastoral initiatives and about the results of the efforts to implement them (which, in any case, are well beyond the ability of a council to control).-Jeff Mirus 

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/archbishop-vigans-comments-on-vatican-ii/


Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted the validity of Vatican Council II but considered it a heretical Council. I agree, that if the Council  is interpreted with the false premise it will be heretical, schismatic and non traditional. But if the false premise is avoided then the Council supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and Vatican Council II is dogmatic. This point has not been touched by Archbishop Vigano, Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler. I have asked for clarifications but none are coming forward.

Understandably, they have not covered this points, since Pope Paul VI and the popes who followd,  have interpreted the Council as a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church. So at one time, the Magisterium has to be wrong.The popes today are explicitly contradicting the popes of the past, on a faith issue - exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The issue is not pastoral. The present popes are using the New Theology, based upon a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents. The Magisterium over the centuries avoided this false premise. There was no New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger,over the centuries.-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Viganò’s comments on Vatican II  

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/archbishop-vigans-comments-on-vatican-ii/



_________________________


JUNE 11, 2021

Vatican Council II is dogmatic

 




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

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

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

2.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.

3.Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked? 
No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).

4.How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.

5.Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.

6.What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).

7.What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.

8.Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

9.What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.
For the present two popes and the traditionalists the red is an exception to the blue. This is irrational.

10.What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?
Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.
Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.


11.What is the essence of this interpretation?

It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies  two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.

Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.  

 Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.

12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?

Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). 

 Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc.  cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes  7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.

When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.

Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.

Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.

So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades


Fake premise

Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

Rational Premise
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades



Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
___________________


JUNE 14, 2021



Catholic Faith


WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2018

If you interpret Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth in other religions) as referring to known or unknown people in the present times you have two interpretations of Vatican Council II : If you interpret the baptism of desire as referring to invisible or visible people saved outside the Church in the present times you have two interpretations of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus


Comment on the blog Catholic in Brooklyn

We can always count on the infallibility of Church doctrine.
Lionel:
If you interpret Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth in other religions) as referring to known or unknown people in the present times you have two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
If you interpret the baptism of desire as referring to invisible or visible people saved outside the Church in the present times you have two interpretations of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
You are presently interpreting LG 8 as a rupture with EENS and this is your irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS.One of two interpretations.
You are also interpreting the baptism of desire (BOD) as an example of salvation outside the Church and an exception to EENS, this is your irrational interpretation of EENS and BOD.
You are denying the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra who defined EENS in three Church Councils.
Like the present liberal Magisterium you are saying that what was once an 'infalllible teaching' is no more infallible and you have the support of the Left and the Vatican.-Lionel Andrades



APRIL 24, 2018

Vatican Council II is not how Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei interpret it (Graphics)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/vatican-council-ii-is-not-how_24.html


 APRIL 24, 2018


There are no physically visible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I in 2018 or LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, UR 3, GS 22 etc so Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition(Graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/there-are-no-physically-visible-cases.html




APRIL 24, 2018



"There are no physically visible cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in 2018" nor " LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases " so Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors (Graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/there-are-no-physically-visible-cases_41.html


APRIL 24, 2018



"There are no physically visible cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in 2018" and " LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases ", Vatican Council II is not a rupture with an ecumenism of return (Graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/there-are-no-physically-visible-cases_24.html


MONDAY, MAY 3, 2021

Ralph Martin knows that if he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS rationally like me,he is no more on the Vatican's Council for the New Evangelization and will be removed from the faculty in Detroit : the New Evangelisation depends upon the error in the LOHO

 

In the video above Ralph Martin briefly mentions the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO)relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.LOHO cannot be Magisterial since it has made an objective mistake even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16).Invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance, LOHO assumes were visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). In other words, cases of being saved in invincible ignorance were physically visible for them to be practical exceptions to EENS.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.But where are these cases in 1949-2021.We don't know any one. Since if someone was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God. The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water(AG 7), it is extra ecclesiam nulla salus( John 3:5, MArk 16:16 etc).

LOHO also assumes that unknown cases of being saved with the baptism of desire are practical exceptions to EENS and so LOHO criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney. He did not accept this irrationality which produced a non traditional and heretical conclusion.

How can the Holy Spirit make this error? How can this Magisterial ? This is human error.

This was also the irrational reasoning of some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II(1965) and so we have LG 16.

Now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and EENS.In one interpretation LG 16 is an exception to EENS and in the other it is not and exception to EENS.

Ralph Martin, Fr. Mark Goring and Bishop Robert Barron interpret LG 16 as an exception to traditional EENS.I do not do so.So there is a Vatican Council II which has exceptions for EENS and a Vatican Council II, in which LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 etc are not practical exceptions for EENS.There is a Vatican Council II with no exceptions for EENS.

They interpret BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS and I do not do so.For me BOD and I.I refer to invisible and theoretical cases. So they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.So we have today an EENS with exceptions and an EENS without exceptions.

We also have two interpretations of the Creeds and Catechisms with Ralph Martin rejecting the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation) and I accepting it with there being no exceptions.

Ralph Martin is in harmony with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict but in a rupture with the past Feeneyite Magisterium, which did not interpret EENS with exceptions.

I am in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church; the past popes and saints on EENS, but in a rupture with the present two Cushingite popes, for whom Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.

Ralph Martin knows  that if he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS rationally like me,he is no more on the Vatican's Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization and will be removed from the faculty of the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit.His  evangelisation of course would have to be Feeneyite and ecclesiocentric if he interprets EENS and Vatican Council II with no exceptions.This would be the old evangelisation and not the New Evangelisation.It depends upon the error in the LOHO. -Lionel Andrades



BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Rational Premise

The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically invisible cases in 1949-2021
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.They are not examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

Rational Conclusion
They do not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.They do 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.
__________


VATICAN COUNCIL II

Fake premise

Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 14(Baptism of Desire), Lumen Gentium 16 (Invincible ignorance) 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.
Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, made an objective error.

VATICAN COUNCIL II

Rational Premise
 Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium  14 and Lumen Gentium 16  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.-L.A

______________________________________

Lionel Andrades
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
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)