Mystic Josyp Terelya's Prophecy for Our Time

With Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise the German Catholic ecclesiastics come back to the 16th century Church on a faith-issue : exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. They also will have to return to the morals of that time, like homosexual unions being a sin, which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II( rational ).Cardinal Marx can no more say that the Council is a break with Tradition.All the books, articles and theological journals in Germany wrongly interpreted the Council with the False Premise.

 

With Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise the German Catholic ecclesiastics  come back to the 16th century Church on a faith-issue : exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. They also will have to return to the morals of that time, like homosexual unions being a sin, which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II( rational ).Cardinal Marx can no more say that the Council is a break with Tradition.All the books, articles and theological journals in Germany wrongly interpreted the Council with the False Premise.

They have to agree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall who said that there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).There are no explicit and literally-known cases of a non Catholic saved with St. Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire.This is a given. It is something obvious.Even the German bishops will agree.

So when the German ecclesiastics, priests and lay people admit this in public, they also would be saying that hypothetical cases of LG 14( case of the catechumen) are not a practical break  with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known to the saints and martyrs in Germany over the centuries.In principle, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc are always theoretical and speculative only in 2021.So there is nothing in the text of the Council to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( an ecumenism of return) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q,27Q( other religions are not paths to salvation and their members need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell).So when it is a return to Tradition on Catholic faith it is also a return to Tardition on Catholic morals.There is nothing in the Council-text which contradicts traditional morals.

SYNODAL PATH HAS NOT SUPPORT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II

The German Synodal Path has no support in Vatican Council II on faith and morals.The Council cannot be blamed in general. It has a Specific Error which can be avoided.Then there is a return to Tradition with no new theology.

Bishop Athanasius Schnedier and Dr. Taylor Marshall have found that Specific Error in Vatican Council II.They know what causes the break with Tradition.It is the False Premise.This was not known to the German cardinals and bishops.The Council Fathers( Rahner, Ratzinger etc) used the False Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) and Pope Paul VI did not correct the mistake.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Why is it not necessary to be a member when for centuries the dogma EENS has said that it was necessary ? Since the Letter assumes there are practical exceptions of being saved with the baptism of desire.But it was common sense for centuries that there were no objective cases of the catechumen being saved without the baptism of water and instead with only the desire.So what was invisible was projected as being visible.This was the False Premise. It gave birth to the New Theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation in the present times, so there are exceptions to  EENS etc.

UNETHICAL INTERPRETATION OF EENS

Why must Catholics in Germany choose the unethical and dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS when a rational and traditional alternative is there ? It is a mortal sin of faith to change the understanding of the Creeds and the dogma EENS.

It is the premise which creates a continuity or break with Tradition, irrespective if you are conservative or liberal,a pope, cardinal or bishop.This was not known at the German universities and seminaries. The books and articles were written with the False Premise.

Now in Traditionis Custode, Pope Francis chose the False and not Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and to make it a condition to offer the Latin Mass.

For Pope Francis and the German bishops there are exceptions for EENS, the Syllabus etc. So they imply that there are physically visible exceptions to EENS etc in the present times.But invisible people cannot be practical exceptions to the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.It is a fact of life that there are no physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 2021.So now we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II in Germany.One is with the False Premise ( invisible cases are physically visible in the present times) and the other is with the Rational Premise ( invisible cases are invisible).This is a fact that the Church in Germany will have to acknowledge.It is a reality that the German episcopy has to face.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 5, 2021

In Germany the Catholics who support homosexual marriages could affirm Vatican Council II and interpret it with the Rational Premise and not the False Premise. Then they return to the faith-teachings of the 16th century.In the past homosexual unions were always mortal sins.

In Germany the Catholics who support homosexual marriages could affirm Vatican Council II  and interpret it with the Rational Premise and not the False Premise. Then they return to the faith-teachings of the 16th century.In the past homosexual unions were always mortal sins.

With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally the German Catholics would be saying outside the Church there is no salvation( Ad Gentes 7) and there are no exceptions to AG 7 in hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc and neither are there any practical exceptions to AG 7 in Germany in 2021.

So the Catholic Church would be saying that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7). This is a faith teaching.

In the 16th century gay marriages were mortal sins of morals.This still is a moral teaching of the Catholic Church.Homosexual unions are sin.

The Church has not changed when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise.

Cardinal Marx justifies the German Synodal Way with a break with  Tradition for him, when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the common false premise.With the Rational Premise he will return to 16th century Germany.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/in-germany-catholics-who-support.html

_______________________________

OCTOBER 4, 2021

Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.Taylor Marshall have found the Specific Error in Vatican Council II. It is the Fake Premise. They have used the Rational Premise. This was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/bishop-athanasius-schneider-and.html

OCTOBER 4, 2021

Was the Holy Mass of Archbishop Lefebvre 'irregular' with mortal sins of faith ? Are the SSPX bishops and priests offering Holy Mass in doctrinal heresy ? Is it a scandal ?

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/incomplete-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre.html

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 (eucharistandmission )

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail

In Germany the Catholics who support homosexual marriages could affirm Vatican Council II and interpret it with the Rational Premise and not the False Premise. Then they return to the faith-teachings of the 16th century.In the past homosexual unions were always mortal sins.

In Germany the Catholics who support homosexual marriages could affirm Vatican Council II  and interpret it with the Rational Premise and not the False Premise. Then they return to the faith-teachings of the 16th century.In the past homosexual unions were always mortal sins.

With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally the German Catholics would be saying outside the Church there is no salvation( Ad Gentes 7) and there are no exceptions to AG 7 in hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc and neither are there any practical exceptions to AG 7 in Germany in 2021.

So the Catholic Church would be saying that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7). This is a faith teaching.

In the 16th century gay marriages were mortal sins of morals.This still is a moral teaching of the Catholic Church.Homosexual unions are sin.

The Church has not changed when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise.

Cardinal Marx justifies the German Synodal Way with a break with  Tradition for him, when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the common false premise.With the Rational Premise he will return to 16th century Germany.-Lionel Andrades

Se San Francesco oggi tornasse, cosa avrebbe detto? Delle nostre nostre contraddizioni, della nostra fede..

5 ottobre Santa Faustina Kowalska, la segretaria di Gesù Misericordioso

It has been found that when there is Perpretual Eucharistic Adoration (24 hours ) in a parish divorce rates drop, crime and negativity in society decline - Sister Emmanuel Maillard

Trending/Repost : Archbishop Lefebvre's books are now obsolete

 

AUGUST 5, 2017

Archbishop Lefebvre's books are now obsolete

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II(Cushingite) was a rupture with Tradition. It was heretical.He was right to reject it.

The SSPX bishops were also correct to reject Vatican Council II which was commonly interpreted with an irrational premise.
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS CHANGED DOGMA ACCORDING TO POPE BENEDICT XVI

This would seem obvious, for example, when it refers to being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) which would mean there is salvation outside the Church. So as Pope Benedict XVI confirmed last year, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century. Vatican Council II is a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th century.So Vatican Council II is not a pastoral Council it has changed dogma.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS CORRECT TO REJECT ALL THIS

Since LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS it means that the old ecclesiology of the Church has been done away with. Now with salvation outside the Church there can be the Anonymous Christian saved in his religion. This was the foundation for the new ecumenism. So it was said that a non Christian does not necessily have to enter the Church for salvation.Since he could be saved in invincible ignorance. He could be saved with the baptism of desire. He could be saved with 'seeds of the Word' all without 'faith and baptism'.Archbishop Lefebvre was correct to reject all this.

So this was a grand rupture with Tradition.Doctrine has been changed. I repeat - Vatican Council II was not a pastoral Council as some of the traditionalists like to believe. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected this interpretation of Vatican Council II and the popes did not.

They all made a mistake.

There was an obvious mistake and it was overlooked.

It got pass every one.

Reason it out. 

If LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS then it would have to be known.An unknown person cannot be an exception.If there is a box of oranges and there is an apple in the box the apple is an exception because it is different but also becuase it is there in that box.

Someone has to exist and be visible to be an exception to the teaching on all needing to be members of the Church for salvation (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
This person would have to live in our reality. We would have to know his name and surname.

So this was the inference.

It is upon this inference that we have the New Theology of Vatican Council II accepted by the popes and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

And there is no such person. There cannot be any such person.

No one in our life time.
How can we humans know of someone saved outside the Church? He would be in Heaven. How can we see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water? This would be known only to God.
For us humans this is ' a zero case' as John Martignoni, the apologist puts it.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma EENS said Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson.

Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the new Benedictine Rector at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome agrees with him.

MYSTICI CORPORIS  REFERS TO A HYPOTHETICAL CASE

So LG 16 was really a hypothetical case. It was speculative and theoretical and not an exception to the dogma EENS. 

It never was an exception even in the past.Mystici Corporis is referring to a hypothetical case. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is referring to an unknown person. When the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it was not an exception to EENS at that time.St.Thomas Aquinas was not saying there was a known case of a catechumen who desired the baptism of water and died before he received and so was now in Heaven.This had to be wrongly inferred by the liberal theologians.

The Holy Office 1949, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits made a mistake.
Cardinal Cushing imposed the leftist excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney for over 19 years.So it gave him time to place the mistake in Vatican Council. The excommunication was political and supported by the Jewish Left.

There are now superflous references to being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB) in Vatican Council II.

They are not a rupture with Tradition.Non existing cases on earth do not contradict  EENS ( Feeneyite) or the Syllabus of Errors.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this.

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell him about it.

He kept writing books criticizing Vatican Council II in which he interpreted LG 16 as being an exception to Tradition.When Archbishop Marcel Lefbvre wrote J'accuse le Concile and Letter to Confused Catholics  he did not know about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

Even now after some 50 years the SSPX bishops still interpret LG 16 as referring to a visible case.

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE'S WRITINGS DO NOT APPLY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)

When LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, AG 7, AG 14, GS 22,NA 2 etc are seen only as hypothetical cases in 2017 they are not a rupture with Tradition.We get a new interpretation of the Council which is traditional.

So it makes the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre obsolete.

They no more apply to Vatican Council II(Feeneyite). We now know that there cannot be a new ecumenism when the ecclesiology of the Church has not changed.So with a rational and traditional theology there can only be an ecumenism of return.

There cannot be salvation outside the Church for Jews etc when there is no known salvation outside the Church in 2017 to contradict traditional EENS as the missionareis in the 16th century knew it.Mission is still based on the old understanding of non Catholic religions and salvation.

We need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State since there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church.

Collegiality is not a problem when there is unity on doctrine. If all the bishops and popes are willing to affirm LG 16 as referring to invisible cases we are united on Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).

Religious liberty was never an issue in the past when the ecclesiology of the Church and State was exclusivist. The papal states allowed the Jews and other non Catholics to follow their religion.The religion of the state however taught outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation based on John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Enter through the narrow gate for the road to Hell is wide and most people take it.(Matt.7:13).All this was unknown to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops since their premise was wrong. They accepted the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.SSPX bishops and priests are still interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational inference.
Here is Bishop Fellay making the mistake.

MISTAKES BY BISHOP FELLAY AND FR. PIER PAOLO PETRUCCI

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82  2

The same mistake was made by Father Pier Paulo Petrucci the present Superior of the SSPX at Albano, Italy. 3

ROME CAN COME BACK TO THE FAITH WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)
When they accept or proclaim Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite, with LG 16 referring to an invisible case ) they are not rejecting Vatican Council II and neither are they rejecting Tradition.Instead as Archbishop Lefebvre suggested they can ask Rome to come back to the faith.IThey can do this in a simple way.They can choose a rational and traditional interpretation of the Council .It has an obvious continuity with the past and no ambiguity within it.

So it is meaningless to read the books of the good Archbishop. They belong to another time.He was correct that Vatican Council II (Cushingite- with LG referring to a visible case) was a rupture with Tradition and the SSPX should continue to reject it as their founder did.

WRONG TO EXCOMMUNICATE HIM

They were wrong to excommunicate him since the magisterium's interpretation of Vatican Council II was rupture with the past and was heretical. Instead there should be an apology.

It was a leftist excommunication as in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney who was not teaching any thing new. We now know that invisIble for us being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire never ever was an exception to his interpretation of the dogma EENS.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

AUGUST 4, 2017

SSPX Italy is not affirming Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) for political reasons

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/sspx-italy-is-not-affirming-vatican.html

2.

NOVEMBER 4, 2016

Bishop Bernard Fellay interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and conclusion : there is an option, a rational conclusion of which he is unaware of http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/bishop-bernard-fellay-interprets.html

3.

JANUARY 12, 2016

Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci, Superior General,SSPX , Italy makes the familiar SSPX error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/fr-pier-paolo-petrucci-superior.html

________________________________________

JUNE 14, 2014

Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html

APRIL 28, 2017

Bishop Fellay does not realize that he is confused between Feeneyism and Cushingism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/bishop-fellay-does-not-realize-that-he.html

________________________________________________________