All the books on Vatican Council II in
Germany are written with the False Premise and not the Rational
Premise. The German Government could clarify this for Cardinal Reinhardt Marx and
the German Synodal Way.The editors of the newspapers in Germany do not know it
yet but all their reports on the Council and the New Ecumenism, New
Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation etc were all created with the False Premise-deception.
Cardinal Marx does not issue a statement
to correct the error. He does not grant interviews to admit that he made an
error.
German journalists are not asking him
how can hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in
Vatican Council II be objective examples of salvation in 2021 ? How can they
contradict the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus which says outside the Church there is no salvation ?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.
Taylor Marshall have said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of
desire(LG 14).There are no explicit cases of Aquinas’ implicit baptism of
desire said Dr.Taylor Marshall.This contradicts the bad theology of Cardinal
Marx and the Synod.
Cardinal Marx should be affirming the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation, since there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
The German bishops also should be affirming
the Syllabus of Errors (ecumenism of return) with Unitatis Redintigratio 3,
Decree on Ecumenism in Vatican Council II,
not being an objective exception.
Even the conservative media in Germany
are interpreting LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, irrationally, so
they are not correcting Cardinal Marx.
If Cardinal Marx announces that LG 8, LG
14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc, always refer to
hypothetical and invisible people in Germany in 2021, then it means that there
is nothing in the Council-text to contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q,
27Q on other religions and the need for conversion into the Catholic Church for
salvation.-Lionel Andrades
https://catholicethics.com/ethicists/stephan-goertz/
OCTOBER 7, 2021
Cardinal Marx and Michael Matt Editor Remnant News use the same False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Both Cardinal Marx and Michael Matt are using the same Fake Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so break with Tradition, especially Magisterial Documents which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Michael Matt is the Editor of Remnant TV. He believes that there is division between traditionalists and liberals.This is seen in the Latin Mass for him.
But this division was really created by the
False Premise.This was not know to Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre.It was also unknown to Cardinal
Marx.
If they all simply used the Rational Premise to
interpret Vatican Council II there would be a
continuity with Tradition, especially
ecclesiocentrism.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall have said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire(LG 14).There are no
explicit cases of the implicit baptism of desire of
St. Thomas Aquinas.But for the liberals and
traditionalists the baptism of desire is explicit.Physically visible. So extra ecclesiam nulla salus becomes obsolete for Cardinal Marx and Michael Matt.-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 6, 2021
Pope Francis and Cardinal Marx can no more cite Vatican Counci lII to support the German Synodal Way, since the False Premise has been discovered by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall.Lumen Gentium 14 etc are exceptions to Tradition, for the pope and cardinal and not exceptions to Tradition, for the bishop and lay apologist.This is a new reality before the German bishops
OCTOBER 6, 2021
Pope Francis and Cardinal Marx can no more cite Vatican Counci lII to support the German Synodal Way, since the False Premise has been discovered by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall.Lumen Gentium 14 etc are exceptions to Tradition, for the pope and cardinal and not exceptions to Tradition, for the bishop and lay apologist.This is a new reality before the German bishops.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Marx can no more cite Vatican Counci lII to support the German Synodal Way, since the False Premise has been discovered by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall.Lumen Gentium 14 etc are exceptions to Tradition, for the pope and cardinal and not exceptions to Tradition, for the bishop and lay apologist.This is a new reality before the German bishops.
Bishop Schneider said that the baptism of desire does not refer to literal cases. The German Synodal Way interprets LG 14( baptism of desire)as a rupture with the Creeds, Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, In other
words, it is a literal and visible case in the
present times,for it to be an exception to EENS etc.
But an invisible case cannot be a practical
exception.
This was the reasoning of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
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
traditionally had no exceptions. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says that ‘ for eternal
salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’. It is as if there were explicit and
objective cases of the baptism of desire in 1949-Boston or Rome.
If the German cardinals and bishops interpret
Vatican Council II rationally i.e LG 14 is an invisible case in 2021; it is always, only
hypothetical and theoretical for us humans, then
they could be affirming EENS with no exceptions.They would not be in schism with the past Magisterium on EENS, Syllabus of Errors,
Athanasius Creed etc.The Catechisms would no more contradict each other and other Magisterial Documents,There would not be contradictions in the Catechisms, like invincible ignorance being
projected as an exception to EENS.
With LG 14 ( baptism of desire) not being a
literal case in 2021 for Schneider and Marshall,
they indicate that Pope Francis and Cardinal Marx re different. They have another interpretation of the Council. In principle, Pope Francis and Cardinal Marx assume that unknown and invisible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc, are physically visible examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church.These would be physically visible non Catholics for the pope and Cardinal Marx ( so they are exceptions for EENS) and physically invisible cases of non Catholics for Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall.So LG 14 etc are exceptions to Tradition for the pope and cardinal and not for the bishop and lay apologist.
So there is a new reality before the German bishops. There are two different interpretations.Both their conclusions are different.This is a fact.
The Synodal Way intentionally chooses the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition by using the False Premise( invisible non Catholics are visible in 2021 ) and Schneider and Marshall are intentionally choosing the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition with the Rational Premise( invisible cases are invisible in 2021, there are no literal cases of LG 14 etc).
With the False Premisethe Synodal Path has to be heretical, schismatic, liberal and non traditional. It is not Catholic.
The German bishops have a rational and non schismatic choice before them.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Writer on Vatican Council II being dogmatic and not only pastoral.It is in harmony with the extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Athanasius Creed etc.
It is found that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational. Since one uses a Rational Premise and the other a False Premise.One is Magisterial with the past Magisterium and the other, the common one, has an objective error and so cannot be Magisterial.It is the same with the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose the irrational version which is heretical, non traditional, liberal and schismatic, while a rational option is there, which is traditional ?.
__________________
OCTOBER 5, 2021
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
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.
OCTOBER 4, 2021
Posts
