If Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise then the Council becomes traditional and the pope supports Tradition, and the Church becomes traditional.It is hard to imagine a traditional pope but with the Rational Premise there is no other choice. They have to be rational and traditional.Since without the False Premise there is no liberalism.
When everyone interprets Vatican Council II rationally,it would be the honest and correct thing to do.
If Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II rationally, they would be affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nullas salus, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed.They would be traditionalists.So the popes and cardinals would affirm Tradition and not liberalism any more. So the Catholic Church would come back to Tradition and it would be official and public.-Lionel Andrades
______________________________
AUGUST 15, 2021
The cause for the liberalism in the Church after Vatican Council II is unknown and the result of the Council is mistaken as the cause of 'the revolution', 'the reforms' in the Church : the result is confused as the cause
The rejection of traditional exclusive salvation , the new ecumenism, ‘the spirit of Vatican Council II’, the general liberalism is not caused by Vatican Council II(VC2) per se, in itself.The result of VC2 has a hidden cause. It is subtle.Most people are unaware of the real cause of the liberalism. They confuse ‘the result’ as being the cause.Once the precise cause of the liberalism is known, it makes no difference, knowing that Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Cushing and Murray were present at the Counci. They all are incidental.Since once the cause of the liberalism is known, the liberalism can be eliminated and so the presence of the Masons at the Council, does not prevent a return to Tradition today, with the same Vatican Council II of 1965.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
This point of cause and effect is very important. Since most Catholics confuse the effect, the ‘liberal reforms of VC 2’ with the presence of liberal ecclesiastics and non Christians at the venue of the Council as being the cause. Or they confuse the change in liturgy, the new Mass, as the cause of the liberalism. They are not aware of the precise cause of the break with Tradition.It is hidden. So they put the responsibility, for the change in the Church, on many things, except for the precise cause.
Those who have been reading this blog Eucharist and Mission ( euchararistandmission ) will know what is the precise cause and how in a flash we can go back to Tradition in 2021.
But this was not known in 1965. It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. If Fr. Leonard Feeney knew about it he did not mention it in public. It was not known clearly to Archbishop Pierre Thuc.
THE NEW THEOLOGY WAS BASED UPON AN EMPIRICAL ERROR
Let me name it.The precise cause for 'the revolution', 'the reforms of VC2', 'the paradigm shift' in the Catholic Church, 'the New Theology', was an empirical error, an error in observation, a philosophical error, that go passed every one.It was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO).
Now we come to the 'cause'. The cause, in a surprise for some, would not be the German theologians or the German ecclesiastics.The cause was a simple and subtle error, which brought in a New Theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation in the present times.This resulted in new doctrines, a dogma being discarded. The result was there were new disciplines in the Church, a new understanding of Church ( ecclesiology). With the New Theology it was possible to have the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law etc.
It seems as if Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, knew what was the precise cause and he would not make it public. He would use it to make changes in the Church. He would sustain the progressivism and liberalism, now seen in the German Synodal Path.He did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre about 'the cause', but allowed him to be excommunicated. If Pope Pius XII knew of 'the cause' i.e invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he did not announce it. He allowed Fr. Leonard Feeney to be excommunicated.He let the Church believe that invisible cases are visible.
So the irrationality, 'the cause' came into the Church when Joseph Ratzinger was a young man during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.Ratzinger was not responsible for it.He went along with 'the dark secret ', beleiving it was in the interest of peace and security and the welfare of the Church.
Our Lady would tell Fr. Stefano Gobbi, in her locutions to him, that Satan would enter the Church at the highest levels and confuse ecclesiastics.
Pope Pius XII knew about the dark secret but he kept quiet with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney, the archives indicate. This was mentioned by Brother Andre Marie MICM when interviewed by Timothy Flanders, the new editor at 1Peter5.
The 'cause' was the confusing of hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being objective examples of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions to the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So the LOHO wrongly concluded that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.Why? Since there were, allegedly, personally known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water, and instead with BOD, BOB and I.I.
So now it is asked , how can invisible people be practical exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return, or the traditional ecclesiocentrism of Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center ?
Fr.Leonard Feeney could see through the error. He commented on the ecclesiastics in Boston and Rome, not knowing theology.
They probably knew theology but for political reasons were projecting invisible cases as being practical exceptions to traditional EENS. This was after World War II and the creation of the new state of Israel.
Fr. Leonard Feeney had the Boston establishment and hierarchy in Rome against him.Their agenda seemed, 'get rid of the dogma EENS in the Catholic Church. Teach error.'Archbishop Lefebvre was up against the same thing in 1965.The St. Benedict Center(SBC) and the SBC professors dismissed by Jesuit Boston College, knew what was happening, but to whom could they go to ? Boston and Rome wanted to change doctrine and then Pope Paul VI made it official at Vatican Council II.
LUMEN GENTIUM 16 IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE
In all the confusion of those times no one pointed out that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, like BOD and I.I in 1949 were always invisible cases.
If LG 8 etc, like BOD and I.I are seen as invisible cases the Church could return to it's past exclusivist ecclesiology. There would no more be the New Theology and New Liberalism.
THEY COULD SEE THE RESULT BUT NOT THE CAUSE.
Many religious left the Church after 1965.They could see 'the result'.They did not know about the cause. May be some in Boston knew what was the cause.The cause was not the elimination of the dogma EENS-that was the result. The cause was the official use of the false premise.It was confusing hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being practical exceptions to EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc.
The cause of the rupture with Tradition was not known to the SBC either.They were interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.This can be seen today on the Catholicism.org reports on Vatican Council II.The SBC never said that Vatican Council II was Feeneyite. Instead, like the SSPX, the Council was always Cushingite for them.They interpreted the Council with the false premise.It was the popes who also used the false premise and so were irrational, heretical and schismatic.
The SBC communities held on to the truth about EENS for all of us and we have to admire them for this.
The 'cause'- was the false premise.
Now Pope Francis can re-read Vatican Council II differently. He has a choice. We all have a choice. We don't have to read the Council like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Our premise is invisible cases are always invisible on earth.This is rational.So our conclusion is invisible cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II, are not visible exceptions to EENS).Our conclusion is now rational and traditional.
For us, the ecclesiology of the Church today, can be the same as in 1948 and earlier.Vatican Council II (rational) is an ally, with the hermeneutic of continuity with past.It means when Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II, EENS and other Magisterial documents with the rational premise they are Magisterial. When they use the false premise they are no more magisterial.-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 14, 2021
Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Catholics can interpret the Council with a rational premise and undo the error of half a century.
AUGUST 14, 2021
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he chooses the New Theology
AUGUST 14, 2021
All the reports on Traditionis Custode are not mentioning that the popes have interpreted Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with a fake premise and this is the officially approved interpretation for all priests who wish to offer Holy Mass in any rite
AUGUST 14, 2021
The popes from Paul VI to Francis have used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . The popes from Pius XII to Francis have used a false premise to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus
AUGUST 14, 2021
We are Catholics and not leftist politicians
AUGUST 14, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic. We are no more limited by half a century of error.We have found the missing link. We now know how to consistently, systematically and regularly create the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition when reading VC2
AUGUST 13, 2021
Today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise it cannot be Magisterial. This is an important point that Eric Sammons does not discuss
AUGUST 12, 2021
The FSSP priests must stay in France but announce that they accept Vatican Council II but interpret it rationally.So the Council supports traditional dogma and doctrine. If Pope Francis and the bishops say that the Council must be interpreted irrationally to create a rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) this is unethical and not Catholic.Even by secular standards this is dishonest.
Lionel Andrades
Promotore dell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II. Per lui il Concilio è dogmatico e non solo pastorale.
Scrittore sulla scoperta delle due interpretazioni d
AUGUST 14, 2021
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he chooses the New Theology
AUGUST 14, 2021
All the reports on Traditionis Custode are not mentioning that the popes have interpreted Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with a fake premise and this is the officially approved interpretation for all priests who wish to offer Holy Mass in any rite
AUGUST 14, 2021
The popes from Paul VI to Francis have used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . The popes from Pius XII to Francis have used a false premise to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus
AUGUST 14, 2021
We are Catholics and not leftist politicians
AUGUST 14, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic. We are no more limited by half a century of error.We have found the missing link. We now know how to consistently, systematically and regularly create the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition when reading VC2
AUGUST 13, 2021
Today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise it cannot be Magisterial. This is an important point that Eric Sammons does not discuss
MAY 7, 2022
Is it not unethical when the sedevacantists interpret Vatican Council II with the Irrational and not Rational Premise and then create a break with Tradition ?
Is it not unethical when the sedevacantists interpret Vatican Council II with the Irrational and not Rational Premise and then create a break with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed, Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27 Q with practical exceptions of 29 Q i.e. invincible ignorance) etc.
Bishop Donald Sanborn, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Peter and Michael Dimond and many bloggers are all interpreting Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise and then they reject the Council.
Even the liberals use the same False Premise to interpret the Council, the Creeds and Catechisms and welcome the nontraditional conclusion, and attribute it to Vatican Council II and not their Irrational Premise.
The Society of St. Pius X also depends upon the same False Premise, as the present two popes, and so are politically correct.
APRIL 1, 2022
The USCCB bishops use the common False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II.Is it legal ? : in principle, the USCCB gives the green light for cheating.
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
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment