Friday, September 3, 2021
The Ecclesia Dei communties must not let Pope Francis affirm Vatican Council II schismatically with the false premise and expect the rest of the Church to follow
The Ecclesia Dei communities in their statement have said that
they do not see themselves as ‘the true
Church’.They also indicate that they accept Pope Francis’ interpretation of
Vatican Council II with the false premise instead of the rational premise.
They are concerned about disciplinary apostolic visits.They will
be forced to implement liberal programs based upon the irrational
interpretation of Vatican Council II, which they will not challenge.
The Ecclesia Dei communities are limited. Since they accept Vatican Council II schismatically like Pope
Francis. They all use the false premise which Bishop Schneider avoided in his
recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
These communities need to tell Pope
Francis to interpret Vatican Council rationally and take the Catholic
Church back to Tradition at all rites and liturgies.
They should mention that the SSPX-Vatican talks during the pontificate
of Pope Benedict,were a waste of time.Since both sides were interpreting the
Council with LG 14 ( baptism of desire) referring to literal and objective
cases.
With his liberalism,based upon the false premise, Pope Francis is creating division in the Church and the Ecclesia Dei communities have not called attention to it.He is not allowing the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass to be offered by those who go back to Tradition, while correctly putting aside the Council, when it is interpreted schismatically.
ECCLESIA DEI COMMUNITIES MEET POPE FRANCIS
1.The Ecclesia Dei
communties must tell Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, to affirm Vatican Council
II interpreted non schismatically and that they expect the popes to also interpret
the Council with the rational premise, before they offer Holy Mass.
2.They need to tell Pope
Franics to affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and
political legislation,based upon the strict interpretation of EENS, supported
by Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise).
3.They must tell him to
affirm an Ecumenism of Return to the Catholic Church, for Christian communities
and churches, since Unitatis Redintigratio 3 does not contradict the
traditional exclusivist ecclesiology and interpretation of EENS.
4.They need to tell Pope
Francis to affirm Traditional Mission like the Jesuits of the 16th century,
since the baptism of desire (Lumen Gentium 14) and invincible ignorance (Ad
Gentes 7) are not exceptions to extra
ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to St.Ignatius of Loyola, St.Robert
Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.
5.They must not let Pope Francis affirm Vatican Council II schismatically, with the false premise and expect the rest of the Church to follow. The Council is no more an issue for the traditionalists.Pope Francis can no more cite Vatican Council II to support his liberalism. The people are aware of a rational interpretation of the Council. -Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral.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
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leaders-of-ecclesia-dei-communities-rhetorical-judo/?utm_source=home_more_news&utm_campaign=catholic
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/09/communique-of-superiors-general-of.html
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
I affirm the Catholic Church's teachings on other religions and salvation
I affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.
1.I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021. They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also irrational and non Magisterial.
2.I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
3.Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
4.Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.I do not know of any practical exception in the present times.
5.I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since they can only be hypothetical, always.
6.I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism.
7.Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.
8.In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible. I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
9.So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational premise.
10.In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.
11.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8, LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.
For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in 1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.
12.Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism.
These are the teachings of the Catholic Church which I affirm and the priests in the parish are unable to do the same.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, father of Catholic moral theology,says that if a priest is in public mortal sin, do not go up to receive the Eucharist. Since it would be a sin against faith and charity. He is on the way to Hell and you are telling him all is well.
The priest must end the scandal.(Teologia Moralis Bk.3, N.47)
In my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea Rome the priests have a problem with the Creeds, Catechisms and other Magisterial documents, just like Pope Francis.They are in public schism. So I do not go up to receive the Eucharist, at Holy Mass in Italian.
Pastorally, they allow this situation to continue. -Lionel Andrades
With the false premise there are 'objective exceptions' to EENS. There are visible exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed is changed, there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed etc :-
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.
https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church/
When Pope Benedict refused to give canonical
recognition to the SSPX unless they accepted Vatican Council II schismatically
with the false premise it was coercion. Even today the Ecclesia Dei communities
have to follow the popes' schismatic interpretation of the Council for
canonical recognition and permission to offer the Latin Mass
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/09/when-pope-benedict-refused-to-give.html
When Pope Benedict refused to give canonical recognition to the SSPX unless they accepted Vatican Council II schismatically with the false premise it was coercion. Even today the Ecclesia Dei communities have to follow the popes' schismatic interpretation of the Council for canonical recognition and permission to offer the Latin Mass
WHEN POPE BENEDICT REFUSED TO GIVE CANONICAL
RECOGNITION TO THE SSPX UNLES THEY ACCEPTED VATICAN COUNCIL SCHISMATICALLY WITH
THE FALSE PREMISE IT WAS COERCION.EVEN TODAY THE TWO POPES DO NOT WANT THE
WHOLE CHURCH TO INTERPRET MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS NON-SCISMATICALLY WITH THE
RATIONAL PREMISE.THEY WANT A HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE WITH THE PAST.
THEY WANT THE ECCLESIA DEI COMMUNITIES TO FOLLOW
THE POPES SCHISMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL FOR CANONICAL RECOGNITION
AND PERMISSION TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS.
If Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II
with the rational premise there would be no liberalism.Ratzinger,
Rahner,Cushing and Murray could do nothing.Now if Pope Francis interprets the
Council with the rational premise the division, caused by liberalism, ends.It
is the false premise which creates the liberal-conservative divide.Without the
common fake premise there is no development of doctrine.Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus today would be the same as the in the 16th century for Pope Francis, Pope
Benedict and me.
With Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict hoped that
the Society of St. Pius X would accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the
false premise and also the non traditional, liberal conclusion.
It did not work out.
He announced that the SSPX problem was a
doctrinal issue. They had to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, accept
the non traditional conclusion and then they would not be in schism for
rejecting Vatican Council II.
He did not tell them that he was in schism .
Since there were two interpretations of the Council, one rational and the other
irrational, If the SSPX would accept Vatican Council II with the rational
premise there would be no break with the past Magisterium and Tradition.No schism.
If Pope Benedict does not confuse what is
invisible as being physically visible in the interpretation of Vatican Council
II, he would be Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He would be
ecclesiocentric. Then much of his writings in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus
Iesus, which are Christocentric only, would be non Magisterial.He used
the false premise and so rejected the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the
Catholic Church.There was a New Theology created with the fake premise.
When Pope Benedict refused to give canonical recognition to the SSPX , unless they accepted Vatican Council II with the false premise,it was coercion.Even today the two popes and the Left do not want the SSPX , and the whole Church, to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise.
They want the Ecclesia Dei communities to follow
the popes’ schismatic interpretation of the Council for canonical recognition
and permission to offer the Latin Mass. This is the familiar coercion. -Lionel
Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation
of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
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
Posts
