In the last Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima Question and Answer session Bishop Athanasius Schneider said that the Society of St. Pius X was not in schism. But the SSPX is in schism when they interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise, like the Ecclesia Dei communities at Cortalain, France last September.
The False Premise has to create schism.
Now the SSPX cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed since there are
exceptions created with the Fake Premise.There are none for me.
They cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism
of return to the Church since there are exceptions created with the False
Premise. So their New Theology is the same as the liberals and the Masons.
Their website rejects Feeneyite EENS since for them the baptism of
desire, invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood are objective cases since
1965.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X (29Q-invincible ignorance) contradicts the
same Catechism (24Q.27Q-outside the Church there is no salvation).This is all
schism with the past Magisterium.
The past Magisterium did not use the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire
and invincible ignorance. St. Thomas Aquinas did not say that the man in the
forest saved in invincible ignorance was a known case and so a practical exception
for EENS, which he held. Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and
invincible ignorance were not objective exceptions for the strict
interpretation of EENS, for St. Robert Bellarmine. This is common sense.
The SSPX interprets the Council schismatically like the FSSP. So the
FSSP did not correct Bishop Roland Minnerath at Dijon, France, who has written
books supporting a theology of religious pluralism and the rejection of the
Syllabus of Errors.
This is schism. This is first class heresy. Schism and heresy are mortal
sins of faith.
Today the SSPX can get out of schism and choose the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. They have to admit that Pope Pius XII made an objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and that unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cannot be known and visible exceptions for traditional Feeneyite EENS. They must announce that LG 8, LG 14. LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2022.This is something obvious.
So then there would be nothing in the Council-text
to contradict the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and 16th
century EENS.
Vatican Council II would be traditional, exclusivist and in harmony with
the popes, saints and martyrs of the past.
This though, is not the Vatican Council II of the popes from Paul VI to
Francis I. It is they who are in schism and can choose orthodoxy with the
Rational Premise.-Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 13, 2021
The Latin laity at Dijon, France are free to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and to also interpret the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, with the Rational Premise and to ask Bishop Roland Minnerath to do the same
The Latin laity at Dijon, France are free to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and to also interpret the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, with the Rational Premise and to ask Bishop Roland Minnerath to do the same.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 1, 2021
Pope Francis and Bishop Roland Minnerath create division in Dijon with the New Theology which the FSSP will have to accept of offer Holy Mass in French
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.
This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
Interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and Lionel Andrades
INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.
RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
JUNE 29, 2021
In Dijon, France Catholics do not have unity on the First Commandment, the Creeds, Catechisms, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II and Bishop Roland Minnerath is allowed to offer Holy Mass. The laity could ask the bishop and the fssp priests, religious communities and parishiones, to interpret Vatican Council Ii and Magisterial documents without the fake premise and instead to use the rational premise
JUNE 29, 2021
In Dijon, France Catholics do not have unity on the First Commandment, the Creeds, Catechisms, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II and Bishop Roland Minnerath is allowed to offer Holy Mass. The laity could ask the bishop and the fssp priests, religious communities and parishiones, to interpret Vatican Council Ii and Magisterial documents without the fake premise and instead to use the rational premise
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2021
They did not tell Bishop Roland Minnerath that with the Rational Premise he would be a traditionalist like the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities and that he needs to re-interpret the Council
NOVEMBER 13, 2021
At the Coetus Patrem International Discussion on Vatican Council II yesterday none of the speakers said that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode chose the irrational one
At the Coetus Patrem International Discussion on Vatican Council II yesterday none of the speakers said that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode chose the irrational one.
Also none of them said that in Dijone, France,
Bishop Roland Minnerath continues to interpret
Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise.He does not choose the Rational Premise which would make him a traditionalist like the Ecclesia Dei communities.
It would be the same for the American bishops.
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentioins of the very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Pietro et sub Pietro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysisi, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church - Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode.
Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode interpreted Vatican Council II with the False Premise and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. So Traditionis Custode is not Magisterial on Vatican Council II. Pope Francis has to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents with the Rational Premise and then there is no more a New Magisterium.
Recently Archbishop Arthur Roche, Prefect of Congregation for Divine Worship said that the the Latin Mass clashed with the New Magisterium, which came from Vatican Council II. He meant the Council interpreted with the False Premise.
But with the Rational Premise there is harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the ecclesiology of the Church is exclusivist before and after Vatican Council II.
Pope Francis needs to also inform Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School in Italy, to interpret Vatican Council II ethically.
Similarly the New Evangelisation of Cardinal Ragle and Bishop Robert Barron must be based upon Vatican Council II, Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
All this was missing in the discussion whose participants are still stuck in 1965 and those times.
Pope Benedict was not told that all his books on Vatican Council II, Ecclesiology etc, carry the Cushingite germ.There is an epidemic in the Church and the official heresy and schism has to be controlled.The virus is also there among the traditionalist and conservative Catholics.
Bishop Robert Barron and Massimo Faggioli among
others wrote books on Vatican Council II
interpreted with the Fake Premise and not the
Rational Premise.The error needs to be
acknowledged.Instead, one of the participants in
the discussion Robert Fastiggi, indicated that he will continue to write books, articles and teach Catholic theology with the Irrational Premise, False Inference and Non Traditional Conclusion. -Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 17, 2019
Operation Dustbin
OCTOBER 24, 2021
Q & A : What is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. In brief can you tell us what is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
A. I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as always referring to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2021. So there are no objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed ( all need the Catholic faith for salvation).There are none mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.Neither are there any known, practical exceptions.
I accept the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as being hypothetical cases. I do not reject them.But I do not project them as being practical exceptions to EENS. It was the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which made an objective mistake.
So there are two interpretations of the Council today. One with the common False Premise and the other, mine, with the Ratioinal Premise. Their conclusion is non traditional, heretical, schismatic and divisive. Mine is in harmony with the past Magisterium.It has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. So Catholics today have an option.-Lionel Andrades
HTTPS://EUCHARISTANDMISSION.BLOGSPOT.COM/2021/10/Q-WHAT-IS-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-YOUR.HTML
THURSDAY, JULY 1, 2021
Pope Francis and Bishop Roland Minnerath create division in Dijon with the New Theology which the FSSP will have to accept of offer Holy Mass in French
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.
This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
Interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and Lionel Andrades
INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.
RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
Posts
