Thursday, November 30, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (Updated 30.11.2023 )
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican
Council II ?
It is a different way of looking at LG 8,14,15,16,UR
3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.
Why is it different?
It sees LG 8,14, 15,16 etc as being only hypothetical
cases. They refer to invisible people in 1965-2023. So they are not objective
examples of salvation in the present times . They are not exceptions for the
past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. They do not contradict the Council of
Florence (1442) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
We cannot see any one saved in imperfect communion
with the Church (UR 3) or where the Catholic Church subsists outside its
visible boundaries (LG 8). If any one was saved outside the Church it could
only be known to God.
So what ? Why is this important ?
Presently the popes, cardinals and bishops interpret
Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. LG 8, 14,. 15, 16 etc are exceptions
for the dogma EENS. The Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope
Pius IX are made obsolete by them. So they imply that LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA
2, GS 22 are objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not
invisible cases for them. This is irrational. The invisible- people- are-
visible premise is unethical. But this is the common way to create the
hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
What are the implications of the L.A interpretation?
We read the text of Vatican Council II differently. We
also read the text of other Church Documents (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
Dominus Iesus, Catechism of Pope Pius X, etc) differently. If the hypothetical
cases in Vatican Council II ( baptism of desire-LG 14 etc) are marked in red and the orthodox
passages which support the past ecclesiology are marked in blue, then the red passages do
not contradict the blue. Presently for most people
, the red is an exception for
the blue.
The Church has returned to the past faith and morals
based upon exclusive salvation in only the Church.This was Apostolic. It is a
return to the Church Fathers and to the missionaries of the 16th century.
Catholics can once again proclaim the Social Reign of
Christ the King in all politics, since Vatican Council II is in harmony with
Tradition.It is important for Governments and societies to be Catholic since in
Heaven there are only Catholics ( AG 7, LG 16, CCC 845,846 etc).
We have returned to the past Traditional Mission based
upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the necessity for all to be
members of the Catholic Church; to believe in Jesus in the Catholic Church
only, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
There can now only be the old ecumenism of return and
inter-religious dialogue will be missionary. The theological foundation will
now be a Vatican Council II which is orthodox and Magisterial.
It means the present interpretation of the popes,cardinals
and bishops, is irrational and so non Magisterial.
So why did the Council Fathers in 1965 not know all this ?
They repeated the objective mistake made
in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra
ecclesiam nulla salus, or, EENS according to the Church Councils. The Church
Councils (1215 etc) did not mention any exceptions.
Vatican Council II is no more liberal?
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Lefebvre and the others at
Vatican Council II in 1965 made a mistake when they accepted the New Theology
of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to
Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Letter issued by the Holy Office (CDF/DCF) wrongly
assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). This was an objective
error. Then based upon this mistake, Pope Paul VI also assumed that there were
exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So for him EENS
had become obsolete since there was known salvation outside the Church, for him
too. This was an irrational and liberal interpretation of the Council. Since we
now know that we cannot meet or see any one saved with the baptism of desire or
in invincible ignorance. Pope Paul VI also did not correct the error in the
1949 LOHO when he lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So now we can interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8,
14, 15, 16. UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being only invisible cases in 1965-2023.
We have a rational choice. The conclusion is traditional and in harmony with
EENS of the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.
Vatican Council II is no more liberal. For example,
Bishop Stephen Brady of the Anglican Ordinariate interpreted Vatican Council II
irrationally and liberally. Then he expected Fr. Vaughn Treco to do the same.
Since the Council interpreted irrationally would be a rupture with Tradition,
as expressed by the priest. The priest refused to accept Vatican Council II
(irrational) and stayed with Tradition. He was excommunicated.
The Council now supports Fr. Vaughn Treco when it is
interpreted rationally. It is Bishop Brady, who is in heresy (rejection of
EENS, changing the interpretation of the Creeds) with Vatican Council II,
irrational. He is in schism with the past Magisterium and he can no longer cite
the Council to support his new doctrines, which were rejected by Fr. Treco.
Those bishops who change the interpretation of the
Creeds or do not affirm the Creeds in their original meaning are automatically
excommunicated, according to the hierarchy of truths (Ad Tuendum Fidem) of Pope
John Paul II.
Do you
accept the Magisterium?
I accept the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Hypothetical cases of the baptism of
desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not
practical exceptions for EENS in 1949-2023. So I am interpreting EENS, BOD, BOB
and I.I rationally and in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries.
I accept
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I interpret LG 8,
LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being hypothetical.
They are invisible cases in 1965-2023.So I am interpreting Vatican Council II
and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally. For me they both have the
hermeneutic of continuity with the past. In the same way I accept and interpret
the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally.
The popes,
cardinals and bishops must do the same. They are not Magisterial when they
interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the
Creeds and the old Catechisms irrationally and dishonestly.
I affirm the
Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed, which I interpret rationally. The popes,
cardinals, bishops, priests and religious sisters must do the same.
I am a
Catholic and in general I accept magisterial teachings.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-lionel-andrades-interpretation.html
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Even Bradley Eli, Christine Niles and others at Church Militant TV do not meet the ‘morality’ requirements when they choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and deceptively, like Pope Francis, and then call it the Magisterium. How can Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise be Magisterial?
Even Bradley Eli, Christine Niles and others at Church Militant TV do not meet the ‘morality’ requirements when they choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and deceptively, like Pope Francis, and then call it the Magisterium. How can Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise be Magisterial? Why don't they resign?
They do not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They also interpret Vatican Council II irrationally for CMTV's tax exempt status.
Since they cannot interpret the Council rationally, for political and other reasons, they too could resign.
The deception is public and it is a scandal.
Secondly, Church Militant was founded by Michael Voris. It belongs to him. If they found something objectionable, then in good conscience they could have resigned, and allow Michael Voris to handle it.
- Lionel Andrades
____________________
APRIL 10, 2023
Bradley Eli chooses deception. No ‘expose’ of CMTV by Christine Niles
Bradley Eli chooses deception. No ‘expose’ of CMTV by Christine Niles
Bradley Eli and Church Militant TV (CMTV) have been saying that they follow the Magisterium. How can it be magisterial to interpret Church Documents irrationally and produce liberalism in the Church, which was not there before 1949?
They are not letting the people know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally and the whole Church returns to Tradition immediately.
They themselves do not want to return to Tradition. They want to maintain good relations with the Left and the Vatican. This will not be possible if they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the 12th to 16 th century Catholic Church.
So they will vaguely criticize Vatican Council II and not enter into theology. Since it will expose them as being heretics and schismatics. This is the result of the fake premise and inference.The whole Church is political and fallowing.
There is no ‘expose’ of this deception by Christine Niles nor is this ‘one of the lies and falsehoods’ Michael Voris wants ‘to trap’.
Upon exclusive salvation in the Church depends the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King, traditional mission and the non separation of Church and State.So the Left don't want it.
CMTV has a specific problem which can be recognized in public.Since if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, refer to hypothetical cases only, then they are traditionalist.They are conservative Catholics.
If Lumen Gentium 8 etc refer to physically visib le examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023, then they are liberals. The de fide teachings on exclusive salvation, of the past, are obsolete.
There is no decision on this issue from Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj and the popes all these years.Since they were political and so dishonest and deceptive. This was not Catholic.The present interpretation of Vatican Council II is not Catholic.They are choosing to use the fake premise to produce a non traditional conclusion.
The New Evangelisation of Pope Francis, Cardinal Tagle and Archbishop Rino Fisichella is Christocentric and not also Ecclesiocentric.The false premise blocks out the traditional ecclesiocentrism.It produces the political rupture with Tradition.Then it is possible for the liberals to have the New Ecumenism, New Theology, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology, New Canon Law etc. Even the traditionalists and sedevacantists follow the fake interpretation of Vatican Council II and not the rational option.They are not aware of the rational option.
Cardinal Ladaria has been promoting this error through the International Theological Commission, since the time of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. He needs to announce that extra ecclesiam nulla salus today is the same as it was for the missionaries and Magisterium, of the 16th century.Then the bark of Peter rights itself.
CMTV should contact Cardinal Ladaria and ask him the right questions. Of course, this is only if CMTV wants to be Catholic and not politically correct on Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades
APRIL 9, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (UPDATED)
NOVEMBER 21, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It is a different way of looking at LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.
Why is it different?
It sees LG 8,14, 15,16 etc as being only hypothetical cases. They refer to invisible people in 1965-2023. So they are not objective examples of salvation in the present times . They are not exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. They do not contradict the Council of Florence (1442) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We cannot see any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) or where the Catholic Church subsists outside its visible boundaries (LG 8). If any one was saved outside the Church it could only be known to God.
So what ? Why is this important ?
Presently the popes, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. LG 8, 14,. 15, 16 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS. The Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX are made obsolete by them. So they imply that LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not invisible cases for them. This is irrational. The invisible- people- are- visible premise is unethical. But this is the common way to create the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
So what are the implications of the L.A interpretation?
We read the text of Vatican Council II differently. We also read the text of other Church Documents (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Catechism of Pope Pius X, etc) differently. If the hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II ( baptism of desire-LG 14 etc) are marked in red and the orthodox passages which support the past ecclesiology are marked in blue, then the red passages do not contradict the blue. Presently for most people , the red is an exception for the blue.
The Church has returned to the past faith and morals based upon exclusive salvation in only the Church.This was Apostolic. It is a return to the Church Fathers and to the missionaries of the 16th century.
Catholics can once again proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition.It is important for Governments and societies to be Catholic since in Heaven there are only Catholics ( AG 7, LG 16, CCC 845,846 etc).
We have returned to the past Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the necessity for all to be members of the Catholic Church; to believe in Jesus in the Catholic Church only, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
There can now only be the old ecumenism of return and inter-religious dialogue will be missionary. The theological foundation will now be a Vatican Council II which is orthodox and Magisterial.
It means the present interpretation of the popes,
cardinals and bishops, is irrational and so non
Magisterial.
So why did the Council Fathers in 1965 not know
all this ?
They repeated the objective mistake made
in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or, EENS according to the Church Councils. The Church Councils (1215 etc) did not mention any exceptions.
Vatican Council II is no more liberal?
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Lefebvre and the others at Vatican Council II in 1965 made a mistake when they accepted the New Theology of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Letter issued by the Holy Office (CDF/DCF) wrongly assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). This was an objective error. Then based upon this mistake, Pope Paul VI also assumed that there were exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So for him EENS had become obsolete since there was known salvation outside the Church, for him too. This was an irrational and liberal interpretation of the Council. Since we now know that we cannot meet or see any one saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Pope Paul VI also did not correct the error in the 1949 LOHO when he lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So now we can interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, 14, 15, 16. UR 3,
NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being only invisible cases in 1965-2023. We have a rational
choice. The conclusion is traditional and in harmony with EENS of the
Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.
Vatican Council II is no more liberal. For example, Bishop Stephen Brady
of the Anglican Ordinariate interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and liberally.
Then he expected Fr. Vaughn Treco to do the same. Since the Council interpreted
irrationally would be a rupture with Tradition, as expressed by the priest. The
priest refused to accept Vatican Council II (irrational) and stayed with
Tradition. He was excommunicated.
The Council now supports Fr. Vaughn Treco when it is interpreted
rationally. It is Bishop Brady, who is in heresy (rejection of EENS, changing
the interpretation of the Creeds) with Vatican Council II, irrational. He is in
schism with the past Magisterium and he can no longer cite the Council to
support his new doctrines, which were rejected by Fr. Treco.
Those bishops who change the interpretation of the Creeds or do not
affirm the Creeds in their original meaning are automatically excommunicated,
according to the hierarchy of truths (Ad Tuendum Fidem) of Pope John Paul II.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-lionel-andrades-interpretation.html
Monday, November 27, 2023
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) ecclesiology (understanding of Church; faith and morals, traditional mission etc) is the same at the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass.
The Lionel Andrades interpretation of
Vatican Council II is a breakthrough in the Church. The whole Church returns to
Tradition.
The liberals have to accept Tradition or
be in schism. Since Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally and
so honestly.
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA ,2 GS 22
etc are always hypothetical and
invisible cases in 1965-2023.
So they are not objective exceptions for
the Athanasius Creed (all need to be Catholic for salvation), the Catechism of
Pope Pius X (24 Q, 27 Q –outside the Church there is no salvation) and the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Fourth Lateran Council 1215 etc).
It is now excommunicated Fr. Vaughn
Treco who could demand that Bishop Stephen Brady of the Anglican Ordinariate,
return to Tradition. The bishop is in heresy and schism with Vatican Council
II, irrational.
Excommunicated Fr. Alexandro M. Minutella
can now demand that the Archbishop of Palermo, Italy, interpret Vatican Council
II and other Magisterial Documents rationally and return to Tradition.
Traditionalist priests transferred from
the diocese of Ferrara-Commachio, Italy, can now demand that the Archbishop of
Ferrara and the Auxiliary Bishops of Rome, who transferred them, interpret
Vatican Council II rationally and return to the Catholic Faith.
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) could
ask Pope Francis to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and admit that
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II (irrational).Pope
John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, who excommunicated Lefebvre, made a mistake
when they interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and accepted it.
If Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger
interpreted Vatican Council II rationally, then the Church would have returned
to the Tradition of Archbishop of Lefebvre.
Instead they excommunicated Lefebvre.
The irrational interpretation of Vatican
Council II produces heresy and schism. Cushingism. Cushingism with the
irrational premise produces heresy and schism. The Creeds and Catechisms have a
different meaning.
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI
died as Cushingites.
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) ecclesiology (understanding of Church; faith and morals, traditional mission etc) is the same at the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass.
-Lionel Andrades
Wednesday, November 22, 2023
The Church Militant Board of Directors who have ousted Michael Voris are ‘immoral’ when they continue to interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms irrationally and not rationally for political-Left reasons.
The Church Militant Board of Directors who have ousted
Michael Voris are ‘immoral’ when they continue to interpret Vatican Council II,
the Creeds and Catechisms irrationally and not rationally for political-Left
reasons. - Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Conservative Catholics hold politically correct conferences
Michael Voris called a Press Conference at Baltimore the other day, it was announced. He did not announce that Vatican Council II has a harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (which he denies). He needed to be politically correct with the leftist establishment in Detroit and the USCCB bishops meeting in Baltimore. CMTV criticizes the USCCB bishops for wanting to be politically correct.
John Henry Weston and Michael Matt held a conference in Rome and did not announce that they interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only hypothetical They have lost interest in Catholic Tradition.It can be too expensive for them. They are not announcing that Vatican Council II is no more a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of the Catholic Church of Pope Pius X.
The Annual Catholic Identity Conference was held and the speakers chose to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. Edward Pentin’s employment depends upon maintaining this lie.
Other Catholics, politically correct with the Left, held conferences in the USA. Some of them criticized Pope Francis and the Synods for being politically correct with the Left.
If someone meets Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara and asks them if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases- they will not answer.
Since if they answer YES, it would mean that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, being invisible, are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They are not practical and known exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 1949-2023. They would be supporting Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston and suggesting that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake.
But LG 8 etc are always invisible cases in our human reality. They can only be known to God.
But the ‘traditionalists’ know that Vatican Council II will be supporting Feeneyite EENS with Ad Gentes saying all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. While LG 8, 14, 15 16 etc are not exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma EENS. The Council does not contradict the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Romano Amerio and SSPX bishops made an objective error.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says all need to enter the Church for salvation, the Church is like the Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (845). We now know there are no exceptions for CCC 845 mentioned in Vatican Council II.
God the Father wants all to be united in the Catholic Church (845). There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II and there are none known in real life.
This is not mentioned by Archbishop Carlo Vigano in the regular statements he is issues. The Council has continuity with Tradition but he wants to interpret it irrationally and then suggests it should be scrapped.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/conservative-catholics-hold-politically.html
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II , the popes, cardinals and bishops are shown as being not rational and neither ethical and Magisterial.The popes from Pius XII were not Magisterial on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) - they were Cushingite and not Feeneyite.We must now interpret the Creeds and Catechisms with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible in 2023) and not Cushingism ( invisible people are visible in the present times)
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II , the popes, cardinals and bishops are shown as being not rational and neither ethical- it cannot be Magisterial.The popes from Pius XII were not Magisterial on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) - they were Cushingite and not Feeneyite.We must now interpret the Creeds and Catechisms with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible in 2023) and not Cushingism ( invisible people are visible in the present times).
We must interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( LG 16 refers to an
invisible case in 2023) and not Cushingism ( LG 8, 14, 15. 16 etc) refer to
visible non Christians saved outside the Church in 2023).
The Vatican is not commenting on this issue since they have always been
Cushingite since 1949.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( Holy Office) in the
1949, Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Cushing, relative to
Fr. Leonard Feeney,confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being
saved in invincible ignorance, as being
visible exceptions for traditional EENS. So the dogma EENS and the Catechisms
etc were made obsolete in 1949.The Council Fathers in 1965 repeated the
mistake. They enlarged the category of exceptions
to LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.
Pope Francis, the cardinals and bishops cannot continue to
interpret LG 8,. LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA
2, GS 22 etc, with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. They cannot expect all
Catholics to be irrational and dishonest. The people must see LG 8, LG 14, LG
16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, etc, as being hypothetical only.
NEW MISSAL INCOMPLETE
Catholics must also note that the New Missal of Pope Paul VI is incomplete, since it is based upon Vatican Council II, Cushingite. It does not affirm Feeneyite EENS.
ANGELUS PRESS MUST ISSUE A CORRECTION
The Angelus Press of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) must clarify that the books they have published on Vatican Council II, or related to Vatican Council II, including those of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, has an error.The Council was interpreted irrationally and not rationally. The SSPX priests in Rome are refusing to speak to me on this issue.
SSPX CATECHESIS HAS ERROR
They have Catechesis for Adults in Rome with the Catechism of Pope Pius X which they interpret irrationally. Invincible ignorance ( 29Q) is projected as an exception for 29Q ( outside the Church no salvation).They must acknowledge that they made a mistake.
The SSPX cannot say that they are following the popes . The popes accepted Vatican Council II with the error and they rejected the Council, but all the same, interpreted the Council, with the error.
BISHOP MARK PIVARUNAS' MISTAKE ON THE CMRI WEBSITE
Also Bishop Mark Pivarunas must clarify that the list of baptism of desire cases mentioned on the CMRI website, all refer to hypothetical cases only. They are invisible cases in 2023.
Also sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn must admit that his community's interpretation of EENS and Vatican Council II is irrational and not honest.
MHFM FOLLOWS POPE JOHN PAUL II AND 'THE VATICAN II SECT'
Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, like their founder Nathan Joseph, interpret Vatican Council II like 'the Vatican Council II sect' and the popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. The MHFM interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the United States Conferences of Bishops (USCCB).
The Archbishop of Ferarra, Italy Giancarlo Peregro and the visiting Auxiliary Bishop of Rome, Daniele Libanori s.j, transferred traditionalist young priests.Libanori still interprets the Council irrationally like the Italian Bishops Conference. -Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 21, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It is a different way of looking at LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.
Why is it different?
It sees LG 8,14, 15,16 etc as being only hypothetical cases. They refer to invisible people in 1965-2023. So they are not objective examples of salvation in the present times . They are not exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. They do not contradict the Council of Florence (1442) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We cannot see any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) or where the Catholic Church subsists outside its visible boundaries (LG 8). If any one was saved outside the Church it could only be known to God.
So what ? Why is this important ?
Presently the popes, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. LG 8, 14,. 15, 16 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS. The Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX are made obsolete by them. So they imply that LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not invisible cases for them. This is irrational. The invisible- people- are- visible premise is unethical. But this is the common way to create the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
So what are the implications of the L.A interpretation?
We read the text of Vatican Council II differently. We also read the text of other Church Documents (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Catechism of Pope Pius X, etc) differently. If the hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II ( baptism of desire-LG 14 etc) are marked in red and the orthodox passages which support the past ecclesiology are marked in blue, then the red passages do not contradict the blue. Presently for most people , the red is an exception for the blue.
The Church has returned to the past faith and morals based upon exclusive salvation in only the Church.This was Apostolic. It is a return to the Church Fathers and to the missionaries of the 16th century.
Catholics can once again proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition.It is important for Governments and societies to be Catholic since in Heaven there are only Catholics ( AG 7, LG 16, CCC 845,846 etc).
We have returned to the past Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the necessity for all to be members of the Catholic Church; to believe in Jesus in the Catholic Church only, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
There can now only be the old ecumenism of return and inter-religious dialogue will be missionary. The theological foundation will now be a Vatican Council II which is orthodox and Magisterial.
It means the present interpretation of the popes,
cardinals and bishops, is irrational and so non
Magisterial.
So why did the Council Fathers in 1965 not know
all this ?
They repeated the objective mistake made
in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or, EENS according to the Church Councils. The Church Councils (1215 etc) did not mention any exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 19, 2023
You can interpret Vatican Council II according to Pope Paul VI or Lionel Andrades. Vatican Council II can be Cushingite or Feeneyite, with the irrational premise (invisible non-Catholics are physically visible) or rational premise (invisible cases are invisible only). So the conclusion is different. The Council is non traditional or traditional. It depends upon the premise, inference and conclusion, chosen.
You can interpret Vatican Council II according to Pope Paul VI or Lionel Andrades. Vatican Council II can be Cushingite or Feeneyite, with the irrational premise (invisible non-Catholics are physically visible) or rational premise (invisible cases are invisible only). So the conclusion is different. The Council is non traditional or traditional. It depends upon the premise, inference and conclusion, chosen.
So we have orthodox ( conservative) passages and the hypothetical ( speculative, theoretical, invisible) passages in Vatican Council i.e. the orthodox passages are marked in blue and the hypothetical passages marked in red, then the red does not contradict the blue. Invisible people cannot be practical exceptions for Tradition. Tradition includes the past ecclesiocentrism, the exclusivist ecclesiology, the old theology, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X etc.- Lionel Andrades
- 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.
- 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.
________________________________
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
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
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
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
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
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.
- 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.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
DOMINUS IESUS
________________________________
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
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...
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).
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.
NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Posts
