Lionel's blog
Religious communities cannot
continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise when they know
a rational option exists.Also Vocations to the Religious Life must only
interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and extra ecclesiam nulla
salus ( baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance) with the
Rational Premise. This should be obligatory to avoid mortal sins of faith.-Lionel Andrades
Parish Priests and Rectors are obligated
to interpret Vatican Council II and extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with only the Rational Premise and support the traditional
conclusion which may not be politically correct with the Left. These are de fide
teachings of the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, must clarify that Vatican Council
II and EENS must only be interpreted with the Rational Premise. So hypothetical
cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are
not practical exceptions in 2021 for EENS according to the Magisterium and
missionaries of the 15th century.
So no new books should be written on
Vatican Council II unless the author is willing to interpret the Council with
LG 8 etc referring to only hypothetical and speculative cases.
Cardinal Ladaria needs to also announce that
he made a mistake in Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents, when
he wrote books some of them were published by the Pontifical Gregorian University
Press.
The Secretaries of the CDF, Archbishops
Giacomo Morandi and Augustine di Noia need to phase out the books they have
authored and announce that they will interpret the Council rationally, without
the common Fake Premise.
It also needs to be clarified that the
Catholic-Lutheran Declaration on Justification was based upon Vatican Council II
interpreted with the Fake Premise. With the Rational Premise the Lutherans are outside
the Church according to the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus
of Errors of Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7.)
Cardinal Ladaria needs to apologize for
the mistake the CDF made in their correspondence with Brother Andre Marie MICM.The
CDF Secretaries did not use the Rational Premise to interpret the Catechism of
the Catholic Church(847-848) and Vatican Council II (LG 16) and the error is posted
on the website of the Diocese of
Manchester, USA.-Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj needs to clarify that Vatican Council II must only be interpreted with the Rational Premise and this is the interpretation of the Holy Spirit and is recommended in Traditionis Custode.
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must tell the Parish Priests and Rectors to interpret Vatican Council II only with the Rational Premise at First Communion classes, Catechesis for adults and children, religion classes in school and in their homilies.
Similarly all religious communities must only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise since this would be the teaching of the Holy Spirit and it would be Magisterial.
We cannot have a political interpretation of Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise and consider it Magisterial. It would be dishonest. It is unethical to teach Catholics that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
It was unethical for Archbishop Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Vatican to say that there was ‘a new Magisterium’ with Vatican Council II, which he interprets only with a False Premise. So for him some texts in the Roman Missal contradicted the ‘new Magisterium’ of the Council, when it is interpreted unethically.
Similarly in Traditionis Custode, Vatican Council II can only be inspired by the Holy Spirit when it is interpreted rationally and it is in harmony with the past Magisterium which was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There cannot be a development of doctrine or dogma with a known and calculated irrationality. Obviously a false premise will produce a false inference and then a false conclusion, which is not Catholic. So the CDF needs to clarify that bishops will only permit the Latin or Novus Ordo Holy Mass when the laity interprets Vatican Council II honestly and in harmony with the Magisterium of the Roman Missal of 1580.
There is no other choice. Catholics cannot be expected to interpret Magisterial Documents with a Fake Premise as demanded by Satan and the Left.
The seminary of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in Boccea, Rome was forcibly closed and they were stopped from offering the Latin Mass and sometime back Cardinal Braz de Avez said that the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate had to accept Vatican Council II for their canonical recognition. He had to be referring to Vatican Council II interpreted rationally otherwise it would be deception and a sin and the good Sisters would not be obliged to follow him.
Cardinal Ladaria must announce that he interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise only and there is no ambiguity in the text of the Council, which supports Catholic Tradition for him. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q).
The CDF made a mistake when it interpreted Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise.Cardinal Ladaria must inform his Secretaries Archbishops Giacomo Morandi and Augustine di Noia to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with only the Rational Premise and to inform Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of Manchester, USA and his Judicial Vicar, Fr. Georges de Laire, to do the same.
All the students and faculty at the John Lateran Pontifical University, Rome and the other pontifical universities and seminaries, must be told to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the Rational Premise.-Lionel Andrades
Someone needs to tell Archbishops Arthur Roche , Giacomo Morandi and Augustine di Noia that they cannot interpret Vatican Council II with a False Premise to create a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of Holy Mass in Latin and Greek. The Holy Spirit would choose the Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So when these Archbishops, like Pope Paul VI choose the False Premise to interpret the Council, it is heretical, schismatic, divisive, liberal and null and void.It is personal and political and not Magisterial.
The New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Canon Law, New Evangelisation and New Theology is man-made.It’s a development of doctrine with the use of a Fake Premise. So in this way the old exclusivist theology was officially made obsolete.
So for Archbishop Arthur Roche the Magisterium of the Bible would be incompatible with his New Theology created with a False Premise.He refers to a New Magisterium. So there is a New and Old Magisterium for him. His New Magisterium of course would contradict the Bible.
Why do we have to accept a rupture with Scripture , Tradition and the past Magisterium when Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise is in harmony with the past ?
Archbishops Roche, Morandi and Di Noia are a scandal.They want the whole Church to accept their heretical, schismatic and liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II created with the False Premise.
Traditionis Custode is asking Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise and not a Rational Premise- this cannot be Magisterial.
This is a sin.
It is a mortal sin of faith.
According to Dominus Iesus of Pope John Paul II there are some teachings which are de fide and all Catholics are obligated to follow them.
Catholics are not obliged to follow Traditionis Custode when it rejects Vatican Council II- and so also the Creeds, by using false reasoning, which is a deception, a lie, to interpret Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
When I say that in Heaven there are only Catholics I am citing Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally. I am not depending on pre-1930 Church Documents.So this is the present teaching of the Catholic Church according to Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally and not just a personal opinion.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation while LG 16 (invincible ignorance) and LG 14 ( the baptism of desire) are not exceptions for AG 7 for me, since they refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 1965-2021. Ad Gentes 7 is also mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 under the title Outside the Church there is No Salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 ( The Necessity of Baptism) also states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. If there are exceptions because 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' ( CCC 1257) then these cases, could only be known to God and so on earth they would not be practical exceptions for us human beings.
So all those who are in Heaven are there with
Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
If there are people saved in invincible ignorance, in Heaven, they would be Catholic. God would have sent a preacher to baptize them as explained St. Thomas Aquinas,who held the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation. Or, God would have sent them back to earth to be baptized with water as was the experience of St. Francis Xavier and other saints.But the norm for salvation is 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) and not the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, or Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3, Gaudium et Specs 22 etc. Vatican Council II ( rational ) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( rational) for me is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors with no known exceptions, and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.
For me in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 29 Q (invincible ignorance) does not contradict 24Q and 17 Q ( outside the Church there is no salvation).-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/catholics-must-know-that-church-teaches.html
Posts
