To change the
interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla
salus (EENS), the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincibile ignorance,
the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic
Church 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) etc by confusing invisible cases as
being visible and practical examples of salvation outside the Church is
condoning artificial heresy. Itresults
in schism with the present Magisterium.
I have mentioned that
the Lefebvrists Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw, Maike Hickson, John Henry
Weston and Archbishop Vigano also confuse hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, lG
16 etc as being practical exceptions to EENS, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors.
For them there are
literal cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14). Implicit cases are projected as
being explicit examples of salvation among non Catholics in 1965-2021.All this
is irrational.It is also heretical.It contradicts EENS, Athanasius Creed and schism( a break with the Council of Trent
etc ).This creates division in the Church with the False Premise (
invisible cases are visible in 2021, there are practical exeptions for EENS etc
).
This is also the heresy
and schism of the popes from Pope Pius
XII ( on EENS) and Pope Paul VI ( Vatican Council II).The mainstream Catholic
Church has to choose the Rational Choice ( invisible cases are invisible,LG 14
refers to a hypothetical and theoretical case only in 2021).
Chris Ferrara and Roberto
dei Mattei cannot justify heresy and schism by saying that Pope Francis is also
doing the same.
If someone goes for
the Latin Mass it does not make him a traditionalist.Lefebvrists support
heresy, schism and division, with the False Premise.It is the same as the
liberals. They don’t deny it.
Eric Sammons, the Editor
in Chief of Crisis Magazinedoes not deny it.He uses the False Premise to
interpret Vatican Council II, EENS etc.Like Allen Shreck and Scott Hahn at the Faculty of Theology, University of
Steubenville, Ohio,USA,he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with the False
Premise just like Pope Francis.They do not deny it. They agree with me.
Crisis Magazine states that
they are a voice for the faithful Catholic laity.They are faithful to the
liberal teachings of the Catholic Church; with the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
With the False Premise Sammons creates heresy and schism which are mortal sins of faith.Then he asks for
donation.Remember this when you send them your donations. It is the same with
LifeSite News and John Henry Weston.Like Peter Kwasniewski
and the other Lefebvrists they are denying Tradition and they are asking for
donations from traditionalists.They interpret Magisterial documents like the liberals.
I do not use the False
Premise and I do not ask for donations.-Lionel Andrades
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
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 )
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 ?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and interpreted the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with the False Premise( invisible cases are visible in 1949) and so there were alleged practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed, which were contradicted and made obsolete , this was heresy and schism with the past Magisterium, which did not use the False Premise, to interpret the BOD and I.I , EENS, the Syllabus and the Creeds.
This is a mortal sin of faith.It is manifest public in the doctrine and theology of also the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X( SSPX) and their priests today.
For the SSPX bishops and priests BOD and I.I which are always hypothetical are exceptions for EENS. They are practical exceptions.So they criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, and support the LOHO, like the liberal ecclesiastics.
For the SSPX bishops and priests LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc are exceptions for EENS, the Syllabus etc so they reject Vatican Council II which is not ecclesiocentric and does not support Tradition for them. They do not interpret LG 8 etc with the rational premise,in harmony with Tradition.
1.They project exceptions for the Creeds, EENS etc with the use of the False Premise.
2.They do not use the Rational Premise to interpret the Creeds, Vatican Council II etc.
This error is also taught at the pontifical universities in Rome and the SSPX seminary in Econe, Switzerland.A book critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney written by Fr. F. Laisney and published by the SSPX Angelus Press supports these two point-error.
With these two points the SSPX bishops support heresy ( rejection of the Athanasius Creed etc), schism ( with the False Premise there is a re-interpretation of EENS and an irrational interpretation of BOD,I.I etc which is different from the past Magisterium ) and liberalism ( doctrinal division in the Catholic Church).
The Church Fathers and missionaries in the 16th century did not use the False Premise to interpret EENS etc.It is common sense that BOD and I.I are always hypothetical.This was known to St. Francis of Assisi whose feast day is today.It was known to St. Thomas Aquinas and St.Bonaventure.But it was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops,Michael Davis, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Roberto dei Mattei, Corrado Gnerre, Maria Guarini, Paulo Pascualucci. They interpreted Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise.
The Church was ecclesiocentric for St. Ignatius of Loyola and the priest of his time when they offered Holy Mass.But it is no more ecclesiocentric for the SSPX bishops when they offer Holy Mass, since there are exceptions.
So was the 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 ?
Their interpretation of Magisterial Documents( Creeds, Catechisms, EENS, Vatican Council II etc) without the Rational Premise produces heresy, schism and liberalism, with the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.This is not the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the 13th and 16th century.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not know all this and he criticized the Novus Ordo Mass.
We now know that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II one with the False Premise and the other with the Rational Premise( and without the False Premise).So the conclusion will be non traditional and traditional respectively.This is a fact.It's existence was not known to Archbishop Lefebvre.
There are no objective cases of the BOD and I.I. This is a fact.So how could Archbishop Lefebvre accept a New Theology based upon unknown and invisible cases of BOD and I.I being exceptions to EENS?
Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with the New Theology and not the Rational Premise and Archbishop Lefebvre did not object on this point.
The SSPX bishops and the Superior General Fr.Davide Pagliarani, are making the same mistake as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre when they offer Holy Mass. -Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 3, 2021
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre used the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and also Vatican Council ( LG 16 etc) so his interpretation of the First Commandment would be that there is not true worship in only the Catholic Church, since there are exceptions. People are saved in other religions with other gods.So for him the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed would be changed and also the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre used the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and also Vatican Council ( LG 16 etc) so his interpretation of the First Commandment would be that there is not true worship in only the Catholic Church, since there are exceptions. People are saved in other religions with other gods.So for him the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed would be changed and also the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return.All Christians would not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation- there would be exceptions.Since outside the Chruch there was salvation for him he would reject the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.So theologically he was rejecting Tradition like the popes from Pius XII.
There was a choice before Archbishop Lefebvre. He could choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to physically invisible or physically visible cases and his conclusion would be traditional or non traditional, ecclesiocentric or non ecclesiocentric. He chose the irrational option like the popes from Paul VI.
At the SSPX center/chapel in Rome they have a room full of books and magazines all interpreting Vatican Council II with the fake premise, the irrational option. They were not aware of the Specific Error in the the Council-text.They blamed the Council and not Archbishop Lefebvre.
I have a choice. I choose to interpretLG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to physically invisible cases in 2021, So they are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They are not practical exceptions to the old ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. The Syllabus of Error, Creeds, Catechisms and extra ecclesiam nulla salus have not changed or become obsolete for me.
Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara have written books on Vatican Council II interpreting them with a false premise, the irrational option. The result is heresy( rejection of the Athanasius Creed), schism( break with the past Magisterium o EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc) and liberalism ( doctrinal division in the Church). It is the same for many others who have signed the Life Site petitions and other petitions, appealing to Pope Francis to end heresy and schism.
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise in Traditionis Custode. No one corrected him on this point.
Andrea Grillo and 180 signatories in a public Letter criticized the Latin Mass and interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise. The Una Voce International advertisement in the leftist newspaper in Rome did not correct his mistake.
Vatican Council II will be interpreted with the false premise and not the rational premise at the next Synod, and it will overlooked by all.
Peter Kwasniewksi repeats the public error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. There has been so much of propaganda on Rorate Caeili and other media supporting liberal theology, and they will continue, even after being informed.Kwasniewski's books and articles are still a lot of straw ( aside from the good things in them).Kwasneiwski interprets Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the irrational premise creating liberalism and heresy.It is schism with the past Magisterium of the 13th and 16th century.
Don Pietro Leone and Rorate Caeili ( F.G) are outdated with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which creates schism on Ecumenism, Inter-Religious Dialogue, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, Synodality etc.Their reports on Rorate Caeili are appreciated by the liberals. Since they affirm the Council as a rupture and continuation with Tradition.
They don't know that the Catholic Church has returned to Tradition. Rome has come back to the faith doctrinally and theologically- or rather the Faith has come back to Rome.We now know what causes the hermeneutic of continuity, how to avoid it and how to maintain it.
We have a rational and traditional Church with no break between faith and reason. The Council is dogmatic and supports EENS, an ecumenism of return, a Catholic State, the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and the absence of a development of doctrine. The Catholic Church is one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic and ecclesiocentric.
Don Pietro Leone, however good his intentions are and he could be a wonderful person, is part of the old liberal propaganda, that Archbishop Lefebvre fell for, innocently.The Catholic Church has returned to Tradition.
I appreciate the contribution for the Church by Chris Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner and many others, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I too have gained from them but we have to accept that they were/are still using the False Premise which creates heresy and schism and liberalism. -Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 26, 2021
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, the right hand side column and he was followed in the error by Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Chris Ferrara,, Roberto dei Matteo, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. The SSPX bishops are still interpreting Magisterial documents with the false premise
Pope Paul VI brought ‘the smoke of Satan’ into the Church when he interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally. He used the false premise instead of the rational option.Pope Francis and Pope Benedict must announce that Pope Paul VI made an objective error.They must correct the mistake
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall have found the Specific Error in Vatican Council II.They now know what creates the New Theology and the break with Tradition.It is the False Premise.
There are no literal and visible cases of the Baptism of Desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.Taylor Marshall chose the Blue Left Hand Side Rational Column. The Ecclesia Dei communities must do the same and demand that Bishop Roland Minnerath also interpret Vatican Council II with the rational column.
OCTOBER 1, 2021
Ecclesia Dei communities demand that Bishop Roland Minnerath be rational. With the Red Right Hand Side Column he and Pope Francis create official heresy. This is schism with the past Magisterium ( Graphics )
-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 28, 2021
So we proclaim the Faith and return to traditional mission as at the time of St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier
The theological paper Christianity and the World Religions of the International Theological Commission was approved by Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj in 1997 during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II : it interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a false rupture with Catholic Tradition
CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS BY THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION (1997) APPROVED BY POPE BENEDICT AND CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA SJ.
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS (1997)
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).(Lionel: But this is a reference by Pope Pius XII to hypothetical and invisible cases.This is something obvious.It is common sense.) The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.(So he means hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.He has used the false premise.) The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).(O.K,Hypothetically but what has this to do with EENS ? The Letter made an irrational inference too.)In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870).(Again he is referring to an unknown person so why is this mentioned with reference to EENS? Why? Since his new theology is based upon the irrational premise.) But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.(He interprets Lumen Gentium 14 as referring to known people saved outside the Church and so there are known people saved in invincible ignorance.So only those who know and are not in ignorance need to enter the Church for him and not all non Catholics in general. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII,( The teaching of Pope Pius XII on EENS with known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.Unknown and hypothetical cases are made practical and known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Unknown cases are known exceptions. ) but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.(Vaguely supporting the false premise and the New Theology which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition).
68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG14).(The catechumen who is saved with implicit or explicit desire is a hypothetical case. So why is it mentioned here ? Since it is not a hypothetical case for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j. ) With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God.(He does not say that they are all oriented to Hell. Since that would be the traditional Feeneyite theology with unknown cases not known exceptions to traditional EENS)In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).(For him the exceptions to the norm, faith and baptism , are the ordinary means of salvation. )-Christianity and the World Religions, ITC, 1997
Even ITC's The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised is also presented with the false premise , which is a specific error in Vatican Council II.It creates the New Theology.Liberals and Lefebvrists interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology.
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: (it was a dogma defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Magisterium and not an adage)“salusextra ecclesiam non est”, (it was always extra ecclesiam nulla salus)the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.(He is referring to his irrational interpretation with the false premise.He calls it a nuanced version. His 'nuanced version' of course is not the traditional exclusivist understanding of salvation with the rational premise.)The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood.(This is traditional Feeneyite theology which he will be contradicted in the next line by assuming unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation) On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord” (In other words they are exceptions to EENS for the ITC and so there is no more an exclusive interpretation.-
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISEDhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
TRENDING AS THE POST MOST ON THIS BLOG : PADRE PIO SAID THAT MARTIN LUTHER IS IN HELL AND CHRISTIANS WHO FOLLOW HIM WILL MEET THE SAME END FR.STEFANO MANELLI F.I FOUNDER OF THE FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE
In the Wikipedia entry on Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Lumen Gentium 14 and Lumen Gentium 16 are mentioned, as if they are exceptions or relevant to EENS. What has theoretical cases of LG 14 and LG 16, which exist only in our mind, have to do with EENS in 2021? Wikipedia could simply post the statements of the popes and saints on EENS and leave it at that. Why bring in Vatican Council II or the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance? https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/09/in-wikipedia-entry-on-extra-ecclesiam.html
OCTOBER 3, 2021
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre used the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and also Vatican Council ( LG 16 etc) so his interpretation of the First Commandment would be that there is not true worship in only the Catholic Church, since there are exceptions. People are saved in other religions with other gods.So for him the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed would be changed and also the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre used the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and also Vatican Council ( LG 16 etc) so his interpretation of the First Commandment would be that there is not true worship in only the Catholic Church, since there are exceptions. People are saved in other religions with other gods.So for him the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed would be changed and also the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return.All Christians would not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation- there would be exceptions.Since outside the Chruch there was salvation for him he would reject the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.So theologically he was rejecting Tradition like the popes from Pius XII.
There was a choice before Archbishop Lefebvre. He could choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to physically invisible or physically visible cases and his conclusion would be traditional or non traditional, ecclesiocentric or non ecclesiocentric. He chose the irrational option like the popes from Paul VI.
At the SSPX center/chapel in Rome they have a room full of books and magazines all interpreting Vatican Council II with the fake premise, the irrational option. They were not aware of the Specific Error in the the Council-text.They blamed the Council and not Archbishop Lefebvre.
I have a choice. I choose to interpretLG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to physically invisible cases in 2021, So they are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They are not practical exceptions to the old ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. The Syllabus of Error, Creeds, Catechisms and extra ecclesiam nulla salus have not changed or become obsolete for me.
Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara have written books on Vatican Council II interpreting them with a false premise, the irrational option. The result is heresy( rejection of the Athanasius Creed), schism( break with the past Magisterium o EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc) and liberalism ( doctrinal division in the Church). It is the same for many others who have signed the Life Site petitions and other petitions, appealing to Pope Francis to end heresy and schism.
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise in Traditionis Custode. No one corrected him on this point.
Andrea Grillo and 180 signatories in a public Letter criticized the Latin Mass and interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise. The Una Voce International advertisement in the leftist newspaper in Rome did not correct his mistake.
Vatican Council II will be interpreted with the false premise and not the rational premise at the next Synod, and it will overlooked by all.
Peter Kwasniewksi repeats the public error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. There has been so much of propaganda on Rorate Caeili and other media supporting liberal theology, and they will continue, even after being informed.Kwasniewski's books and articles are still a lot of straw ( aside from the good things in them).Kwasneiwski interprets Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the irrational premise creating liberalism and heresy.It is schism with the past Magisterium of the 13th and 16th century.
Don Pietro Leone and Rorate Caeili ( F.G) are outdated with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which creates schism on Ecumenism, Inter-Religious Dialogue, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, Synodality etc.Their reports on Rorate Caeili are appreciated by the liberals. Since they affirm the Council as a rupture and continuation with Tradition.
They don't know that the Catholic Church has returned to Tradition. Rome has come back to the faith doctrinally and theologically- or rather the Faith has come back to Rome.We now know what causes the hermeneutic of continuity, how to avoid it and how to maintain it.
We have a rational and traditional Church with no break between faith and reason. The Council is dogmatic and supports EENS, an ecumenism of return, a Catholic State, the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and the absence of a development of doctrine. The Catholic Church is one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic and ecclesiocentric.
Don Pietro Leone, however good his intentions are and he could be a wonderful person, is part of the old liberal propaganda, that Archbishop Lefebvre fell for, innocently.The Catholic Church has returned to Tradition.
I appreciate the contribution for the Church by Chris Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner and many others, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I too have gained from them but we have to accept that they were/are still using the False Premise which creates heresy and schism and liberalism. -Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 26, 2021
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, the right hand side column and he was followed in the error by Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Chris Ferrara,, Roberto dei Matteo, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. The SSPX bishops are still interpreting Magisterial documents with the false premise
Pope Paul VI brought ‘the smoke of Satan’ into the Church when he interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally. He used the false premise instead of the rational option.Pope Francis and Pope Benedict must announce that Pope Paul VI made an objective error.They must correct the mistake
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall have found the Specific Error in Vatican Council II.They now know what creates the New Theology and the break with Tradition.It is the False Premise.
There are no literal and visible cases of the Baptism of Desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.Taylor Marshall chose the Blue Left Hand Side Rational Column. The Ecclesia Dei communities must do the same and demand that Bishop Roland Minnerath also interpret Vatican Council II with the rational column.
OCTOBER 1, 2021
Ecclesia Dei communities demand that Bishop Roland Minnerath be rational. With the Red Right Hand Side Column he and Pope Francis create official heresy. This is schism with the past Magisterium ( Graphics )
Posts
