Preghiamo affinche i Cattolici imparino
che il Concilio Vaticano II,razionale,
interpretato razionalmente è in armonia
con la Tradizione,in particolare, con il
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Saturday, June 4, 2022
758 - Corrado Gnerre - E’ ancora valido l’ “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”?
E importante notare che se qualcuno viene salvato in un'altra religione sarebbe salvato attraverso Gesù e la Chiesa Cattolica e sarebbe un Cattolico in Cielo, ma non possiamo judicare nessun caso in particolare come un' eccezione practica per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Quindi la norma per la salvezza e la fede e il battesimo nella Chiesa Cattolica (Concilio Vaticano II, Ad Gentes 7). Quindi quando incontro un non Cattolico so che lui è orintato all'Inferno perche non ha fede e battesimo. Questo è l'insegnamento della Chiesa Cattolica nel Concilio Vaticano II, interpretato raziolamente.
Corrado Gnerre non ha fatto la distinzione implicito-explicito, invisibile-visible che rimouve la confusione.-Lionel Andrades
English translation.
It is important to note that if any one is saved in another religion he would be saved through the Jesus and the Catholic Church and would be a Catholic in Heaven -but we cannot practically judge any case in particular as being a practical exception for the dogma EENS. So the norm for salvation is faith and baptism in the Catholic Church ( Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7). So when I meet a non Catholic I know he is oriented to Hell because he does not have faith and baptism. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II.
Corrado Gnerre has not made the implicit-explicit, invisible-visible distinction which removes confusion.-Lionel Andrades
Preghiamo affinche i Cattolici imparino che il Concilio Vaticano II,razionale, interpretato razionalmente e in armonia con la Tradizionr, in particolare, con il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Let us pray that Catholics learn that Vatican Council II, rational, interpreted rationally is in harmony with Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Council has changed
There are no practical exceptions in the Council-text for the past ecclesiocentrism. Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc refer to only hypothetical cases. They are not objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This is Vatican Council II (Rational). LG 8 etc are interpreted with the Rational Premise. The Council has changed.
For the popes Francis and Benedict LG 8
etc are exceptions for 16th century EENS.They are visible cases
in the present times. The Council is a break with the past ecclesiocentrism.
The popes and I have the same Vatican
Council II before us but for me LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases in 2022 and
for them they are physically visible examples of non Catholics saved outside
the Church.
So the Council which was known over the last 50-plus years has been changed. It is different for me. It has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Athanasius Creed and the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q, 27Q).Invincible ignorance( 29Q) in that Catechism, is not a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who will be saved it is not a known case. We do not know any such case in the present times.So it does not contradict the strict interpretion of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as held by St.Thomas Aquinas.
So even though the Holy Innocents and Abraham and the Good Thief, Dismas, are in Heaven we do not know of any case in the present times saved outside the Church who would be a practical exception for the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS.
So though Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said outside the Church there is no salvation, he accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being exceptions for Feeneyite and 16th century EENS.He made the same mistake at Vatican Council II. He did not interpret the Council with the Rational Premise ( invisible cases are invisible in the present times).
So the First Commandment for Catholics, is that there is true worship in only the Catholic Church, after the Resurrection of Jesus and after he founded a Church at the Last Supper, whose Apostles proclaimed and spread it from Pentecost.
Here is St.Augustine in harmony with the Apostles and Vatican Council II (Rational).
-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________________
FEBRUARY 9, 2020
IRRATIONAL PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1994) (Graphics)
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION (GRAPHICS) https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/false-premise-inference-and-conclujsion.html
FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION (GRAPHICS) https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/false-premise-inference-and-conclujsion.html
JULY 2, 2021
The laity if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop's weak point is theology.The real issue for him and the present two popes , is not the Maass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism.
THE LAITY IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH, MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIBERAL BISHOP’S WEAK POINT IS THEOLOGY. THE REAL ISSUE FOR HIM AND THE PRESENT TWO POPES, IS NOT THE MASS BUT THE OLD THEOLOGY, THE OLD ECCLESIOCENTRISM.
The laity, if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop’s weak point is theology. The real issue for him and the present two popes, is not the Mass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism. The FSSP priests, are side stepping Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and are going back to the sources of Tradition This is the real problem for the bishop and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
1.The laity must know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II , one with the irrational premise and the other without it. They can choose the CDF interpretation of Vatican Council II or that of Lionel Andrades, without the irrationality.
2.There can also be two interpretations of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). One, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are seen as physically visible people saved outside the Church in 2021,or, as being only hypothetical and theoretical cases, which do not exist in our reality. So the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is rational and the other is irrational. Again the laity have to choose between the interpretations of the popes or Lionel Andrades. They, of course must choose the rational option and ask the bishop to do the same.
This has to be clear.
For it means that at Mass in Latin, French or that of the Orientals, the theology; the ecclesiology of all aspects of the Church will be traditional. There will be no rupture with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of Fr. Leonard Feeney, or the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. This means that the Catechisms of the Council of Trent and Pius X will not contradict itself, when the strict interpretation of EENS is supported along with hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WILL BE TRADITIONAL AND COHERENT BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II.
With the theology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II, being traditional and coherent, the bishop should be asked to affirm the faith.
If he refuses to affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed in public and cites Vatican Council II as a development of doctrine, he is interpreting the Council with the false premise.
Catholics of all Rites in France should be able to affirm Vatican Council II ( rational) and the Athanasius Creed (rational-with no known exceptions).
If the bishop affirms Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed with exceptions, it means he is using the false premise, and should be checked here.
If the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed is recited by the laity at Mass, in a Profession of Faith, it is meaningless, if they interpret the Creeds with the false premise instead of without it. If they interpret the BOD, BOB and I.I with the false premise, then they really change the interpretation of these two Creeds. One interpretation is rational and traditional and the other is irrational and a break with Tradition.
LAITY WILL OFTEN HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE INTERPRETATIONS WITH THE FALSE PREMISE AND WITHOUT IT SINCE THE CONCLUSION IS DIFFERENT
Similarly if the Four Marks of the Church are affirmed ( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic), it can be meaningless and misleading, if the distinction is not made between the fake and the rational premise. Since with the premise the conclusion differs. So the laity will often have to choose between the interpretation of Bishop Minnerath and Lionel Andrades.
It must be remembered that the bishop’s weak point is theology. He has to use the false premise to support his liberalism, ‘the theology of religions’.
TODAY THE HERESY OF THE FALSE PREMISE IS LIKE THE ARIAN HERESY OF THE PAST
The laity and the FSSP priests must know that like in the past there was the Arian heresy in the Church today there is the heresy of the false premise.It is like a theological virus which has become a spiritual epidemic in the Church.
So when they concelebrate Mass in Dijon, or elsewhere in France, the diocesan priest will not be a traditionalist, since he interprets Vatican Council II and other Church documents , with the false premise, which produces a non traditional conclusion.
Then because of the Leftist laws Bishop Roland Minnerath may want to interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the false premise. There is no tension or persecution.
THE BISHOP AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS ARE IN AN ‘IRREGULAR SITUATION’
The FSSP will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’. The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church. The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise, inference and conclusion.I am identifying it and pointing out the original premise and inference which was responsible for the traditional conclusion.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon need an organization or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics. According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organization Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
WE CAN PROCLAIM THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING BASED UPON THE EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
The Latin laity could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset. Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes. Change your premise and you change the Church. Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Once we are aware of the false premise, Pope Francis can create the Amazon and new rites, for the Mass and the ecclesiology of the Church will not change. It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 1, 2021
Bishop Minnerath takes advantage of the laity's lack of knowledge of theology https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/bishop-minnerath-takes-advantage-of.html
FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2016
There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II. Based on this error Pope Benedict said the dogma EENS has 'developed': avoid the error and we are back to the old ecclesiology with Vatican Council II
Today I walked.I walked passed the chapel of the Benedictine sisters, off via Aurelia, Rome.I was in the chapel for a short while. They have day long Eucharistic Adoration.An international community of English speaking sisters, they have their mother house in England.They are called the Tyburn Sisters.
I then walked passed a huge structure. This I think is general house of a missionary community,the White Fathers. I think Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was associated with them.
MISSIONARIES
They were once a missionary community who held the 16th century concept of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.Pope Benedict and Pope Francis reject this dogma.Since may be someone told the popes,as they did with the White Fathers, that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradicts the dogma.Then without really thinking they must have agreed.Without really reasoning they must have agreed that there is known salvation outside the Church, people in Heaven are seen on earth,visibly seen, as you would see physical objects.
MOTHER ANGELICA
So the White Fathers, like Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN who will be buried today, was told that the dogma has been contradicted by the Letter(1949) and Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc).They probably accepted this in obedience.Since the magisterium cannot be wrong after all. Again they were not really thinking.
CUSHING ADDITIONS
The same thing could have happened in Rome during Vatican Council II (1962-1965).Cardinal Cushing could have said, "Look. Fr.Leonard Feeney is still excommunicated. Pope Pius XII did not defend him. Cardinal Ottaviani did not defend him. Pope John XXIII and now Pius VI have not defended him.So they have accepted that there is known salvation outside the Church.This is now magisterial.
'So every one does not need to enter the Church but only those 'who know' . Not every one will go to Hell but only those who 'knew' and did not enter formally. The popes understand that a person in invincible ignorance of the Gospel, through no fault of his own, could be saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
'So this is now magisterial. It is supported by the Letter of the Holy Office and the Baltimore Catechism. Let us place this new doctrine in Lumen Gentium (14).
'Since there is known salvation outside the Church let us make these additions here, which I have prepared along with the Jesuits. The additions can be made at UR 3, NA 2, LG 6,LG 16,LG 14, AG 7...."
OBJECTIVE MISTAKE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
Now in 2016 we know there is an factual mistake in Vatican Council II. There is an objective mistake in LG 14.There is no way out of this one.
They made the original objective error in the Letter(1949) based on irrational reasoning.Then they inserted the line in LG 14.It says only those who know need to enter the Church, even though we cannot know 'who knows or does not know and is saved.'Yet they placed it in the context of the dogma EENS, that is all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation (AG 7, LG 14).
But the real mistake was in the Letter.LG 14 is only a carry over.
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
In Boston and Rome in 1949 they reasoned that there is salvation outside the Church. For there to be salvation outside the Church it would have meant someone in the past or present, should have seen someone saved without the baptism of water in the Church.They went ahead and assumed there was someone.Even though this was physically impossible.The popes accepted it. The cardinals accepted it. Archbishop Lefebvre accepted. it.
After assuming there were physically visible cases of salvation outside the Church,they postulated that not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church.Then they went ahead and said that only those who are not in invincible ignorance of the Gospel and Jesus and the Church would be damned if they did not enter the Church.
They placed this new doctrine based on the non- real reasoning, in Vatican Council II. The principle was hypothetical cases are explicit for us human beings and there are hypothetical-explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries. Fr.Leonard Feeney move over.
HERESY IN PUBLIC
Now Pope Benedict finally says in public that there is a development of doctrine with Vatican Council II. The Jesuits had accepted this since 1949 and it was probably part of the religious formation of Pope Francis.It is the central reasoning in the Rahner -Ratzinger new theology.
The White Fathers of course had to give up mission based on the dogma. Mother Angelica could also no more proclaim the necessity of formal membership in the Church, for salvation, since she was told the dogma has been contradicted with LG 16 being visible and not invisible.
So Cardinal Kasper has said in an interview that if ecclesiology can be changed then why not the teaching on giving the Eucharist to the divorced and the remarried.
RECTOR OF GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY
Possibly this will be a theology, presented by the Rector of the Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome, when the Exhortation on the Synod is announced. The Rector oversees a new department called 'The Department of the Theology of Religions'. How could there be a theology of religions which Pope John Paul II opposed. How? Since there is salvation outside the Church even though there are no known cases of salvation outside the Church. This was something Pope John Paul II overlooked.
There is now a mistake in Vatican Council II.
I do not mention this so that Vatican Council II is rejected.
LG 14 IS HYPOTHETICAL, INVISIBLE
LG 14 can be seen as a hypothetical case. So it then does not become an exception to EENS as the 16th century missionaries and Fr.Leonard Feeney knew it.There is no development of doctrine based on Vatican Council II since EENS is not contradicted by LG 14, LG 16 etc.
JUDAISM, ISLAM
Ecclesiology has not changed if EENS has not changed. We are back to the old ecclesiology on other religions, Judaism, Islam etc.
Protestants and Orthodox Christians, 'heretics and schismatics' (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
ASK POPES BENEDICT AND FRANCIS
1.Pope Benedict and Pope Francis can be asked if they personally know someone who is an exception to the dogma EENS in 2016. They will have to answer 'no'.
2.When asked if LG 16 and LG 14 refer to known cases in 2016, they will have to answer with a 'no'.
EDWARD PENTIN
May be Edward Pentin could say,"Holy Father you said in the interview with Avvenire that there is a development, an evolution of the dogma EENS with Vatican Council II. Are you referring to LG 16 being explicit or implicit, visible or invisible, objective or hypothetical."
...and with Pope Benedict's answer the Catholic Church will return to the old ecclesiology.
He then can ask Pope Francis, " Can the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate offer the Traditional Latin Mass and affirm that LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases.Can the FSSP also do the same?
...and with Pope Francis' answer even Catholic priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass will have to return to the old ecclesiology, the Feeneyite ecclesiology, since this is the only rational alternative available.
-Lionel Andrades
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2021
The Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition. Pope Francis' interpretation of Vatican Council II in Traditionis Custode is a rupture with 'the true Church' and the past Magisterium on EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc
JULY 14, 2021
It's the French bishops who will have their back to the wall and not the FSSP when the laity use the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II. Every thing changes.
It's the French bishops who will have their back to the wall and not the FSSP when the laity use the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II. Everything changes.The LA interpretation of Vatican Council II and Church documents, may seem new in the Church but it is something really old.With it the French bishops are blocked from using bad theology to create ‘ a parallel Church’, which is a rupture with Tradition.
The laity will be able to ask the bishops and priests to affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, irrespective if Holy Mass is in Latin or French.Vatican Council II can have a hermeneutic of continuity with the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.
The French bishops are not going to say that they will continue to interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents without the fake premise, even if it is unethical.
The bishops would be asked to affirm the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and they would not be able to say that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions.Since the laity would be informed. Why should the laity accept 'zero cases' as being exceptions for EENS ? The bishops would not be able to say that Vatican Council II contradicts EENS.The laity would have the LA interpretation before them.
The bishops could be asked to affirm the old ecumenism of return since the hypothetical cases mentioned in Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, could not be practical exceptions to EENS or the old ecumenism of return in the Catholic Church.
So it would finally be obvious to journalists that the issue is not just the Latin Mass or concelebration.
The bishops can no more say that they are following Pope Francis. If Pope Francis is using the common false premise then this is not the work of the Holy Spirit. When Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise there is a continuity with Tradition. This would be Magisterial.
So how can the bishops ask the FSSP priests to concelebrate Holy Mass in French, when the bishops and diocesan priests will not interpret the Creeds and Catechisms rationally? This is a scandal.
With the LA interpretation, Vatican Council II is no more a weak point of the Latin laity.Instead it is they who will demand that the bishops affirm Vatican Council II, quick.
The Una Voce International would not have to be defensive in their next advertisement. It is they who could make demands. The tables have changed.
About a year has passed and The National Catholic Reporter, Crux, Commonweal, Catholic Herald U,K, National Catholic Register, EWTN and the Tablet U.K, are not commenting on this issue.They can see the writing on the wall.
They know that Vatican Council II is no more a rupture with Tradition. But they pretend that the LA interpretation does not exist. So their reports over the week mention tension in France over the Traditional Latin Mass and not their tension with the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II.
What difference does the new expected announcement on Summorum Pontificum make when the Mass in French would have the old ecclesiology? There is no other rational choice before the bishops, priests and people. -Lionel Andrades
JULY 13, 2021
The LA interpretation of Vatican Council II is not new in the Church since the original traditional premise of the Catholic Church is being used.
_____________________
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.
3.Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked?
No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).
4.How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.
5.Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.
6.What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE PIUS XII( This letter was an inter office correspondence between cardinals. However the liberals placed it in the Denzinger and it has been referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains an objective error when it assumes invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Upon this Letter is based the New Theology.) We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemnjudgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807). Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL.
___________________7.What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.
8.Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
9.What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.
For the present two popes and the traditionalists 'the red is an exception to the blue'. This is irrational.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.
3.Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked?
No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).
4.How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.
5.Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.
6.What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).
( This letter was an inter office correspondence between cardinals. However the liberals placed it in the Denzinger and it has been referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains an objective error when it assumes invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Upon this Letter is based the New Theology.)
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemnjudgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL.
___________________
7.What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.
8.Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
9.What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.
For the present two popes and the traditionalists 'the red is an exception to the blue'. This is irrational.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him...- Ad Gentes 7. Vatican Council II
10.What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?
Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.
Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.
Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases.They are invisible in 2021. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic.
13 The bishops and the diocesan priests are in an irregular situation since they do not use the Lionel Andrades interpretation?
The Priestly Fraterniy of St. Peter (FSSP) for example, will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.This is being identfied here.It is being pointed out to.So we are back to the original premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the Catholic Church. I call it the LA interpretation to identify it.I am presently the only one who is using it with reference to Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.
14.Only the Catholic Church?
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon, for example, need an organisation or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
The Social Reign of Christ the King can be proclaimed based upon the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II.
The laity in Dijon, or any where else in the world, could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more be seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset.Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the Church.
Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
15.The Rite does not make a difference?
Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create the Amazon Rite and new rites, for the Mass.The ecclesiology of the Church will not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: - Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
Fake premise
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusion
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
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
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational Conclusion
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.
______________________________________
10.What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?
Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.
Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases.They are invisible in 2021. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic.
13 The bishops and the diocesan priests are in an irregular situation since they do not use the Lionel Andrades interpretation?
The Priestly Fraterniy of St. Peter (FSSP) for example, will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.This is being identfied here.It is being pointed out to.So we are back to the original premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the Catholic Church. I call it the LA interpretation to identify it.I am presently the only one who is using it with reference to Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.
14.Only the Catholic Church?
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon, for example, need an organisation or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
The Social Reign of Christ the King can be proclaimed based upon the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II.
The laity in Dijon, or any where else in the world, could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more be seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset.Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the Church.
Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
15.The Rite does not make a difference?
Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create the Amazon Rite and new rites, for the Mass.The ecclesiology of the Church will not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
Fake premise
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusion
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
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
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational Conclusion
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.
______________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
