The USCCB bishops use the common False
Premise to interpret Vatican Council II.Is it legal ? They project Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16, Nostra Aetate 3, Gaudium et Specs 22 etc, in Vatican Council II as referring to a visible and not invisible case in 1965-2022.
For me they are invisible and not physically visible in the present times.
So for them there are practical examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church but for me LG 8 etc refer to only speculative cases.
For them LG 8 etc are practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed.For me hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance(LG 16) cannot be practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church,the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Patristic Fathers and the Jesuit missionaries in the 16th century.
So they use a False Premise( invisible non Catholics saved are visible) and I use the Rational Premise( invisible non Catholics saved in the present times are invisible only).
So officially and publically the USCCB bishops are faking it.
They are cheating and not teaching Catholics the faith.
How can invisible people, who are presently in Heaven,be also visible on earth and be present at two places at the same time ? This contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
How can the USCCB be trusted on other issues when they knowingly use a false form of reasoning ?
Otherwise it would seem that in principle, the USCCB gives the green light for cheating.
-Lionel Andrades
MARCH 31, 2022
The USCCB bishops are officially and publically using a False Premise in the USA to interpret Vatican Council II and other Church Documents. Is this legal?
The USCCB bishops are officially and publically using a False Premise in the USA to interpret Vatican Council II and other Church Documents. Is this legal?
Bishop Robert Barron does the same and after being informed does not deny it. He now continues to interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise ( invisible people are visible), Fake Inference( they are examples of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions for EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc) and Non Traditional Conclusion( Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, the Syllabus of Errors has exceptions and so is obsolete etc).
For me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case but for the USCCB bishops it is visible. For me, LG 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) refers to a hypothetical case but for the American bishops it is not hypothetical. If it was hypothetical it would not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.So they need the exceptions.
LG 16 is objective for them and subjective for me. LG 16 is always implicit and never explicit, for me. For them it is the reverse. Upon this irrationality they follow their new theology. The USCCB bishops at Baltimore decided to give the Eucharist to Biden to protect their interests.
They are now choosing to interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise, to protect their interests. Bishop Barron is doing this after being informed. It is unethical.
John Allen Jr’s podcasts are offered on Bishop Barron’s website. Bishop Barron and John Allen interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise and so produce a liberal version of the Catholic faith.
They also support the liberal theology of the popes from Paul VI to Francis, who also created liberalism with the same Fake Premise. The USCCB officially does the same.-Lionel Andrades
MARCH 31, 2022
Hans urs Balthazar did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with a Fake or Rational Premise.
Hans urs Balthazar did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with a Fake or Rational Premise. He did not know that there were two possible interpretations of the Council and the conclusion would be different. It would be either for or against Tradition (Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).
He chose the irrational interpretation and produced a liberal theology.
The prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the popes did not correct him objective and factual mistake.
-Lionel Andrades
ntium 16, 24-hours, throughout the year, always refers to a hypothetical and invisible case. How could it contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X, the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed which Bishop Barron rejected before Shapiro ?
The U.S bishops like Bishop Robert Barron use a False Premise to reject Tradition. They are intellectually dishonest. Unlike the U.S bishops, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) does not accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise.
In this video Bishop Barron says that he did not tell Ben Shapiro that he needed to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and justifies himself by citing Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance).But Lumen Gentium 16, 24-hours, throughout the year, always refers to a hypothetical and invisible case. How could it contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X, the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed which Bishop Barron rejected before Shapiro ? - Lionel Andrades
MARCH 30, 2022
Bishop Robert Barron is intellectually dishonest. He openly uses a False Premise to create a rupture with traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church. This was also done by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria at the Placquet Deo, Press Conference
Bishop Robert Barron is intellectually dishonest. He openly uses a False Premise to create a rupture with traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church. This was also done by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria at the Placquet Deo, Press Conference, when he was asked by a reporter of the Associated Press,if the Church still teaches that it had a superiority on salvation. This response is not the Gospel teaching (John 3:5, John 16:16).
Bishop Barron is creating division in the Catholic Church with the False Premise and was attacking other Catholics on social media who do not accept his liberalism.
In this new politically correct with the Left video(above), Bishop Barron supports first class heresy ( rupture with the Creeds and Catechisms) when he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. This is not magisterial. Since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake. This is human error which is there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) and Pope Paul VI’s 1) accepting the LOHO, 2) accepting the LOHO being referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16) and 3) then concluding that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church, in the present times. So there are also practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, Athanasius Creed etc. So then there is a rupture with the Magisterium of the 16th century which affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS.
The rupture with EENS by Bishop Barron is created by projecting the baptism of desire(LG 14) and invincible ignorance(LG 16), as being objective exceptions for EENS. In other words, what is invisible in 1965-2022 has to be misunderstood as being visible. Then with the false inference Magisterial Documents are rejected.
Bishop Robert Barron is intellectually dishonest, when he does not use a Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and then support the strict interpretation of EENS, as held by St. Thomas Aquinas. In this video he presents Lumen Gentium as an exception for EENS. In other words, there are visible cases of LG which contradict EENS.(See the video-time 10.05 and then 26:25).He then calls this a development of doctrine. First comes with the false premise ( visible cases of Lumen Gentium 16) and then the 'development'. - Lionel Andrades
______________________________________________
MARCH 29, 2022
Future bishops in the USA could be Scholastic. There is no other choice. Since Vatican Council II interpreted rationally supports the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Congregation for Bishops,Vatican recommends the name of bishops for the pope to decide but ultimately it is the pope who will decide. Cardinal Blaise Cupich and Cardinal Joseph Tobin among others, decides who will be a bishop. Politically they are centre-left says John Allen jr, at Crux. They would be moderate and progressive. They will decide who are the future bishops.
But they are still interpreting Vatican Council II with the Irrational and not Rational Premise. There is only one choice. It makes the Council traditional. It supports the past exclusivist ecclesiology.
So all future bishops in the USA could be Scholastic. There is no other choice. Since Vatican Council II interpreted rationally supports the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel Andrades
__________________________________
MARCH 29, 2022
Bishop Barron presents Larry Chapp without mentioning that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and the Council will be Traditional supporting the past exclusivist ecclesiology
MARCH 28, 2022
The first commandment of God is: I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.
MARCH 27, 2022
'The Red is not an Exception to the Blue' changes everything in our interpretation of Vatican Council II
MARCH 27, 2022
A video needs to be produced showing the difference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the 1) Fake Premise, False Inference and Non Traditional Conclusion and 2) with the Rational Premise, Rational Inference and Traditional Conclusion. The graphics are available on this blog.
___________________________________________
____________________________
MARCH 12, 2022
Is the German Synodal Way legal?
OCTOBER 1, 2021
With the irrational premise of the Red Right Hand Side Column, the Athanasius Creed is changed : Popes, Cardinals and Bishops use the irrational column
OCTOBER 1, 2021
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall chose the Blue Left Hand Side Rational Column to interpret the Baptism of Desire (LG 14). The Ecclesia Dei communities can also interpret Vatican Council II rationally ( Graphics )
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
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.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment