Saturday, August 14, 2021

Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Catholics can interpret the Council with a rational premise and undo the error of half a century.






Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Catholics can interpret the Council with a rational premise and undo the error of half a century.-Lionel Andrades





Lionel Andrades

Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.

Catholic lay man in Rome,

Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.

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

Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

___________________


 AUGUST 4, 2021

Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html

Posted by at No comments:

Bishop Robert Barron is quite content to interpret Vatican Council II without the rational premise. This is the example he sets for his family and friends and Word on Fire viewers

 

Bishop Robert Barron is quite content to interpret Vatican Council II without the rational premise. This is the example he sets for his family and friends and Word on Fire viewers.-Lionel Andrades





DECEMBER 21, 2020

Without the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II the present two popes and all the bishops become conservative Catholics, whom Bishop Robert Barron would call rad trads.Without the false premise Bishop Barron himself is in the Trad Movement, which he has been criticizing, after he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise

 

 

Without the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II the present two popes and all the bishops become conservative Catholics, whom Bishop Robert Barron would call rad trads.Without the false premise Bishop Barron himself is in the Trad Movement, which he has been criticizing, after he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. -Lionel Andrades




JANUARY 29, 2020

Bishop Robert Barron interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and this would be unethical even by secular standards in California

Bishop Robert Barron interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and this would be unethical even by secular standards in California.He refers to LG 16, UR 3 etc as exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. There is a rupture with Tradition for him. So he implies that there are objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church as if he can see them on Heaven, there without faith and the baptism of water.



For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases only. They can only be invisible and speculative. They are no exceptioins to the Catechism of Pope Pius X when it says the following:-
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member. 
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X

But for Bishop Barron, LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc would be exceptions to 24 Q abd 27 Q of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.It would be the same for Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria.


 
It is the same Vatican Council II before us, we both accept the Council but he interprets LG 8 etc as referring to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church and for they are only hypothetical cases. They can only be hypothetical cases for us human beings. Always hypothetical.

So Bishop Robert Barron's reasoning is irrational and deceptive. Without the false premise and inference he cannot project Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.

I have written about this before and e-mailed him over the years. He still continues with the deception. This is unethical even by secular standards in the USA.
There should be a moratorum on the books being published by Bishop Barron until he corrects this error.
Now   Bishop Barron wants the bishops to continue to maintain the irrational interpretation of the Council in the universities and on social media. He wants the mandatum to be given to only those who use a false premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II unethically.1
Presently the Ex Corde Ecclesiae is only given to those universities which interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.-Lionel Andrades



1

Bishop Barron said he believes the bishops should consider exercising their authority in the digital sphere “just as John Paul II, in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, called for the bishops to exercise greater supervision of universities operating under the aegis of the Church.”
“There are, to be blunt, a disconcerting number of such people on social media who are trading in hateful, divisive speech, often deeply at odds with the theology of the Church and who are, sadly, having a powerful impact on the people of God,” he said.
“I do think that the shepherds of the Church, those entrusted with supervising the teaching office, can and should point out when people on social media are harming the Body of Christ.”
Bishop Barron suggested that it may be time for bishops “to introduce something like a mandatum for those who claim to teach the Catholic faith online, whereby a bishop affirms that the person is teaching within the full communion of the Church.”

MAY 20, 2018

For Bishop Robert Barron Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) refers to objectively seen non Catholics saved outside the Church.So for him and Pope Benedict the dogma EENS is obsolete and they search for substitute reasons to evangelize

  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/05/bishop-robert-barron-lumen-gentium-16.html


__________________________

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2018
In the deceptive line of Placeut Deo which denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by assuming hypothetical and speculative cases like Gaudium et Specs 22 and Lumen Gentium 8 were practical exceptions to EENS, Bishop Robert Barron interprets Vatican Council II as saying someone outside the Church can be saved, is saved and known to be saved.So for him a non Catholic does not have to be a member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven.
He does not tell Ben Shapiro that the Catholic Church says in Vatican Council II that he needs to enter the Church. He does not tell him that the Church says he will  damned, without 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7) which is the only known way of salvation in the Catholic Church.There are no known cases in real life of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).
Why? Why does he not tell Shapiro that the Catholic Church says he needs to convert for salvation?
1.He could have cited Ad Gentes 7 which say all need faith and baptism for salvation.
2. He could have cited the popes or the Catechism of Pope Pius X which says all need to be members of the Church for salvation. 
3.He could have cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says the Church does not know of any means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water(CCC 1257).
4.He could have cited the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils etc, etc...
Why did he not do it?
Since for Bishop Barron like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria a hypothetical case mentioned in Vatican Council II is an exception to the general teaching on no salvation outside the Church. This error is there in one of Bishop Barron's  books.
Similarly at the Placuet Deo Press Conference when  Cardinal Ladaria was asked if the Church still teaches it has an exclusiveness in salvation, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), denied it.He cited Lumen Gentium 8 which  was an exception for him.This is not how I interpret Lumen Gentium 8.
Lumen Gentium 8 refers to a hypothetical case how can it be an exception ?
When Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation where is the case in 2018 of someone saved without faith and baptism ? There is no such person.
When the Catechism of Pope Pius X says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation, where is the case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church in 2018 with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8)? There is no such person.
So how can a hypothetical and theoretical case(LG 8) be an objective exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation(CCC 1257) ?

 A hypothetical case cannot be a practical exception to the dogma EENS.Period. Similarly the baptism of desire was never an exception to Feeneyite EENS.God made it this way. There is no baptism of desire case for us.
There is no case of invincible ignorance, which is an example of salvation outside the Church. There is no such case in real life. Practically we cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance, within or outside the Catholic Church.God made it this way, just as he made it only possible for women to have babies, water to fall only downwards and men to marry only women.He chose it this way.He also chose salvation to be there in only the Catholic Church.For centuries the Holy Spirit guided the Church to say that every one needs to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church for salvation. Every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church with faith and baptism.

Bishop Barron and Cardinal Ladaria's reasoning were wrong.They both should not have cited Gaudium et Specs 22 ( good will and good conscience) as being relevant to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Cardinal Ladaria should not have cited Gaudium et Specs 22 in the text of Placuet Deo nor pulled out Lumen Gentium 8 when responding to the question by the AP reporter, on whether the Church still had exclusive salvation for him.
The norm for salvation is 'faith and baptism' in the Catholic Church.It is not some hypothetical and speculative case mentioned in LG 8 and GS 22. 
For Bishop Barron before Ben Shapiro the exception is someone in another religion who is saved through Jesus and the Church(CCC 846).This is the new theology of Cardinal Ratzinger based on invisible cases of the baptism of desire,baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance being visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This person who is theoretically saved by Jesus in another religion for Bishop Barron, becomes an exception to the dogma EENS, Ad Gentes 7, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.This was the bad reasoning of Placuet Deo addressed to all bishops.
Bishop Barron then cites Gaudium et Specs 22 and says a man with good will,as an atheist,  can be saved.Once again he means a hypothetical case, a speculative case, completely unknown to any of us humans is an objective exception to the dogma EENS. It would have to be an objective person. An invisible person cannot be an exception to EENS.
This is bad philosophy i.e an invisible non Catholic is alleged to be physically visible.
It is also bad theology ( baron theology) i.e an unknown non Catholic is an example of salvation outside the Church and this invisible person contradicts the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
Cardinal Ladaria, Bishop Robert Barron , Pope Benedict... continue to test our intelligence and get away with it.
Bishop Barron refers to an atheist of good will who follows his conscience who can be saved. Who is this atheist? Does he know someone in particular? No.
A theoretical case of an atheist makes Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II irrelevant and obsolete for the liberals American bishops.This is the USCCB policy. This is how Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the new Chairman of the USCCB Doctrinal Committee interprets Vatican Council II.
So when Jesus said to go out and proclaim the Good News, this case of the atheist, would be a general exception for them.
When Jesus said those who do not believe will be condemned ( Mark 16:16) there are exceptions for the liberals in LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.?
This is why Pope Benedict in March 2016( Avvenire) asked why was there a need for mission since for him the non existing exceptions of LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II are the objective norm.Similarly for Bishop Barron the theoretical and hypothetical exception is the norm for salvation and so he does not tell Shapiro that he needs to convert to avoid the fires of Hell.--Lionel Andrades










MAY 20, 2018

For Bishop Robert Barron Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) refers to objectively seen non Catholics saved outside the Church.So for him and Pope Benedict the dogma EENS is obsolete and they search for substitute reasons to evangelize  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/05/bishop-robert-barron-lumen-gentium-16.html









JUNE 7, 2018

According to St. Thomas Aquinas whom he admires Bishop Barron would be in first class heresy
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/bishop-barron-on-who-can-be-saved.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

___________________


 AUGUST 4, 2021

Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html


Posted by at No comments:

St. Maximilian Kolbe believed in exclusive salvation : feast day today


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

___________________


 AUGUST 4, 2021

Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html

Posted by at No comments:

Donal Anthony Foley and Eric Sammons interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus irrationally even after being informed. This is unethical and doctrinally political.They are not affirming Magisterial documents with the rational premise to produce a harmony with Feeneyite EENS. So they remain liberal and politically correct on these issues and are concerned doctrinally about Medugorje

Donal Anthony Foley and  Eric Sammons interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus irrationally  even after being informed. This is unethical and doctrinally political.They are not affirming Magisterial documents with the rational premise to produce a harmony with Feeneyite EENS. So they remain liberal and politically correct on these issues and are concerned doctrinally about Medugorje.

When they do not affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and project unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being exceptions, to 16th century EENS why do  they want the Franscisan Friars at Medugorje to be politically incorrect with the Left ? The late Fr. Henrik Hoser could also be politically correct like them to reject ecclesiocentrism and support a vague Christocentrism.



The same could be said about the Lefebvrists. They interpret the Creeds and Catechisms with a false premise and consider this traditional.This is even though the liberals whom they criticize use the same irrationality to create the New Theology.

The Lefebvrists interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology and then they also condemn the New Theology.Roberto dei Mattei accepts the Athanasis Creed, Syllabus of Errors and EENS, with objective exceptions which do not exist.In this way he  creates new doctrine on salvation, approved by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.With all this doctrinal confusion he then criticizes Medugorje on points of salvation etc.-Lionel Andrades


https://www.angelicopress.org/medjugorje-complete-foley




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

___________________


 AUGUST 4, 2021

Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html

Posted by at No comments:

There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he chooses the New Theology

 There is an objective and factual  error in Eric Sammons new  book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he supports the New Theology.

Secondly Fr. Leonard Feeney was not condemned for his strict interpretation of EENS. The excommunication was lifted with him having to recite the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation. Vatican Council II has the same message. Ad Gentes 7  states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

So if he interpreted the Council II and EENS rationally there would be no ‘ongoing debate on extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ as he has titled a report on Crisis Magazine.

In order to make the Salvation Spectrum more understandable, I’ve created a chart to lay out the various views:

 


https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-ongoing-debate-over-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus



If Eric Sammons interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS like Lionel Andrades  and not the liberal professor of theology,  Gavin D’Costa at the University of Bristol, England his interpretation  would be rational and traditional. Now it is liberal and still political, like that of Joseph Shaw, John Rao, the late Mons. Brunero Gherardino and Jim Russel the liberal contributor to Crisis Magazine.They all accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 from which Sammons gets his New Theology. The Letter employs the false premise to produce schism and heresy which is officially approved by the popes.-Lionel Andrades



Lionel Andrades

Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.

Catholic lay man in Rome,

Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.

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

Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

___________________


 AUGUST 4, 2021

Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html


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