So were the Council
Fathers (1965) and Pope Paul VI, Magisterial?
The 1949
Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard
Feeney has an objective mistake. So it cannot be Magisterial. It has an error
which was not corrected by the popes since Pius XII.
The Council Fathers repeated this error in Lumen Gentium 14( baptism of desire), Lumen Gentium 16( being saved in invincible ignorance) etc, which were wrongly projected as exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. This was a mistake. It could not be Magisterial. This is really heresy.It is schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. In this sense Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the traditionalists were correct.They rejected a Vatican Council II, which interpreted LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc , irrationally. - Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Questions and Answers : So if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest f Tradition, as you say, then why did the Council Fathers (1965) mention them?
So if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest f Tradition, as you say, then why did the Council Fathers (1965) mention them?
Lionel: They made a mistake. They repeated the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It wrongly projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS, or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which did not mention any exceptions. - Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/so-if-lg-8-lg-14-lg-16-ur-3-na-2-gs-22.html
___________________________________________________________________________
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2021
Q & A : What is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. In brief can you tell us what is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
A. I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as always referring to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2021. So there are no objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed ( all need the Catholic faith for salvation).There are none mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.Neither are there any known, practical exceptions.
I accept the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as being hypothetical cases. I do not reject them.But I do not project them as being practical exceptions to EENS. It was the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which made an objective mistake.
So there are two interpretations of the Council today. One with the common False Premise and the other, mine, with the Ratioinal Premise. Their conclusion is non traditional, heretical, schismatic and divisive. Mine is in harmony with the past Magisterium.It has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. So Catholics today have an option.-Lionel Andrades
FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 2020
Questions and Answers
1.In what way are you different from every one else?
I say there are no literal exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So I read Vatican Council II differently.
Most Catholics accept the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO). So the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.So they imply that there are people known in the present times saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) who are in Heaven. They would have to be visible and known, for them to examples of salvation outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
But we know that there are no such people seen on earth and if they existed in Heaven, they would only be known to God.
We can say a St. Emerentiana is a saint but no one on earth could have seen her without the baptism of water, or at least this is not a general capacity among human beings.No one can say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
The Church does not recognize, any one one on earth having the gift to see St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.
So I see BOD, BOB and I.I as just being possibilities.They exist only in our mind and are not real people whom we know.
So the Council Fathers made a mistake. They should not have mentioned BOD and I.I along with the text which says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).
This is an in-principle error in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers assumed hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was an objective mistake.
We can still read Vatican Council II however, without confusing what is invisible as being visible , implicit as explicit, subjective as objective.This is what I do.So my interpretation of the Council is different. There are only orthodox passages for me. The unorthodox passages are always hypothetical. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages .
When others read the text of Vatican Council II, there are orthodox and unorthodox passages which contradict them. This is what they wrongly assume.They refer to personally known and physically visible non Catholics, saved outside the Church. So this is a false premise and the inference is also wrong.
2. Who taught you this?
No one. I stumbled upon it and then got confirmations from many people. Some seemed to know about it but did not want to talk about it in public.
3. Are you saying that all the popes from Paul VI were wrong on Vatican Council II ?
Yes. They did not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise and in harmony with the past ecclesiology..
Yes. They did not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise and in harmony with the past ecclesiology..
4. Are you saying the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) made a theological mistake in 1949?
Yes since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston assumes unknown people are known exceptions to EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the professors of Boston College who were members of the St. Benedict Center.
This is an objective error. Yet the LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II and placed in the Denzinger.
5.Are you saying all the books on Vatican Council II are wrong?
Yes in general, since they interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to EENS. So they imply that there are practical exceptions when there are none.
New books can be written which re-interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise . So the Council would be in harmony with the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and 16th century EENS.
6.You do no reject Vatican Council II ?
No. I do not have to reject the Council. I re-interpret Vatican Council II rationally and then accept the traditional conclusion.
7.Do you have a problem with the German bishops ?
Personally no, I do not know any of them in particular. However if they interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, the Creeds and Catechisms with a false premise and inference, even after being informed, it would not be Catholic.
8.Who supports you ?
It is common knowledge that there are no visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.It is the same for LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc. This is common sense.So people in general support me. Every one supports me on this point, which is central to what I have to say.Even the professors of theology, who teach political nonsense at the universities, agree with me and say there are no physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 in the present times.
9.Are you presenting a new theology?
No. I am only pointing out that there are no objective exceptions of a non Catholc saved outside the Church. So when the New Theology is based upon this error, it is flawed.There cannot be a New Theology which says outside the Church there is salvation.
We are back to outside the Church there is no salvation supported by Vatican Council II ( AG 7).
We are back to outside the Church there is no salvation supported by Vatican Council II ( AG 7).
10.Are you saying all the books on Vatican Council by the Oxford University Press, Ignatius Press, Liturgical Press etc are obsolete?
Yes. Also the articles and books written by Pope Benedict are in error. The same mistake is made by traditionalist and sedevacantist authors.
11.The professors at secular and pontifical universities have to change their curriculum?
Yes. There is no theological basis for the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law, New Ecclesiology . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church. There are no known exceptions to EENS according to theVatican Council II.
Generally the professors are teaching error in theology.
12.How can you be correct and every one else be wrong ?
I keep saying invisible people are not visible in the present times.Every one agress with me here.
However the new theology of the popes since Paul VI, and that of the cardinals, bishops and professors at the universities, is based upon the philosophical principle that invisible people, saved outside the Church, are physically visible in 1965-2020.They assume these 'known and visible people' are practical examples of salvation outside the Church and so are exceptions to the ecclesiocentric eclesiology of the Church.This is obviously false. -Lionel Andrades
SATURDAY, JUNE 22, 2019
I affirm the public interpretation of the popes before Pius XII who did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were known people saved outside the Church. They did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to EENS. It is the SSPX which is at odds with the popes over the centuries
You are guilty of the error you accuse me of, an inability to admit, in this case, that the Church has declared an unbaptized catechumen in heaven, with St Emerentiana. Your only rebuttal is that the Church could not possibly know if St Emerentiana is in heaven without water baptism( and so we should not posit St.Emerentiana as an exception to EENS, secondly someone in the past is only a hypothetical case today.A possibility saved without the baptism of water in the past, known only to God, cannot be a practical and objective exception to the dogma EENS.Thirdly even if she was saved without the baptism of water as is speculated it does not mean that the possibility is an actual exception to the dogma EENS in the present times(1965-2019) (and thus we should view the object of the Church's public cult for this catechumen saint as merely hypothetical!!),( She is a saint and the cult can continue but please do not say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
You would not know and the Church has not said that any particular person would know and has the gift of seeing people in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water.) and thus your entire apologetic is flawed with the fallacy of petitio principii.
I have also proven to you that you personally do not know of any LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 case in the present times ( 1965-2019) saved outside or within the Church.You have agreed with me. I have also proven to you that you are afraid to admit this common place and obvious conclusion in public , since it will....and for whatever other reason.
These are two important points that you and I have in agreement) other than the fact that you have failed to show where the Church says the indelible mark is absolutely necessary for salvation ( The Catechism of Pope Pius X says that the baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation. I sent you a citation.You ignored it.I also quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257 The Necessity of Baptism).Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(Ad Gentes 7).The norm for salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and not the baptism of desire. (of course, the Church teaches no such thing, otherwise you would have produced the teaching),( If you want more teachings I could produce them, for example the three Church Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the statements of the pope in the ordinary magisterium, the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation and so infers faith and baptism is necessary for all with no exception, the Syllabus of Errors etc, etc,) and that you rely on your own private interpretation of councils and catechisms rather than the public teaching of the Church and 2,000 years of tradition.( I affirm the public interpretation of the popes before Pius XII who did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were known people saved outside the Church. They did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to EENS. It is the SSPX which is at odds with the popes over the centuries. They affirm BOD, BOB and I.I like the popes, since Pius XII.Then with this irrationality(invisible BOD, BOB and I.I cases are physically visible to them) they go back over the centuries and re-interpret the popes as suggesting BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them.Then they say that all the popes contradicted Fr. Leonard Feeney.)
You admit that you do not know of any case of BOD, BOB and I.I which could be an exception to EENS in 2019 .Yet you do not state this in public. You do not want me to quote you. Even a non Christian would agree and say that he knows that there are no BOD,BOB and I.I cases known on earth.They could only be known to God. This is something obvious for human beings in general.And yet you are not sure of yourself on something which will not be denied even by non Catholics.You don't want to be quoted.
So you are allowing the SSPX to continue to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and so change the original meaning of EENS.You will not correct them in public. This is heresy. It is a mortal sin of faith.
You also know that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not refer to practical exceptions to EENS. I have had to spend time explaining it to you and this is not possible with others. Yet you are keeping silent about this and do not inform the SSPX, the traditionalists and the Vatican.Since then they will call you a Feeneyite and not give you the importance they do presently.You do not want to be quoted because of your private interests.You also do not want to admit that like Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and the others you were wrong about Vatican Council II all these years.
Your priority should be Jesus and his Church.
-Lionel Andrades
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019
A closet Feeneyite
Comments
I know of no literal cases(Period.You know of no literal cases and neither do I and neither does any one else in the Church today or at the time of St.Emerentiana) other than what the Church proposes, such as St Emerentiana, who the Church says died as a catechumen like many early martyrs.(1. No one in the Church could have seen her in Heaven without the baptism of water 2. A saint in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS today(2019) 3. We do not know of a St. Emerentiana today). This is not a practical exception to EENS(Agreed. It never was a practical exception to EENS) and it is not hypothetical( with reference to EENS it is hypothetical and not a concrete exception in 2019). You are imposing your erroneous belief that the baptismal character is necessary for salvation, but can point to no Church teaching saying so. (Please do not use the phrase baptismal charachter if you cannot explain it or identify its source. Refer to simply baptism and please qualify when you mean the baptism of water or the baptism of desire). (The necessity of the baptism of water is a de fide teaching of the Church and not just my belief. I have quoted the two Catechisms which state that the baptism of water is necessary for salvation. There would be other Catechisms saying the same thing.
However the bottom line still is that you cannot name any literal person saved outside the Church during your life time and it is the same with the SSPX supporters whom you know. They also do not personally know any particular person who has been saved outside the Church. Then you also affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. So you are saying the same thing as Fr. Leonard Feeney and the popes and martyrs before Pius XII. You are a Feeneyite.A 'closet' Feeneyite?
-Lionel Andrades
-Lionel Andrades
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2019
The SSPX official website presents BOD is an exception to EENS.The SSPX bishops cannot recant since then they would be criticizing Archbishop Lefebvre.They would also be saying that they made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II and even after being informed do not have it them to correct the mistake and admit that they were wrong.
Comment
Let me, yet again, summarize the points and highlight your error.(You have said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire(BOD). A few years back too you said that BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.You don't know of a St.Emerentiana saved outside the Church in 2019 or during your lifetime. So we agree on the important basic important point.There are no practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.This is a break with the Lefebvrists, the liberals and Masons on EENS and Vatican Council II. Welcome to the camp!)
Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation because it brings grace which washes away Original Sin.(Agreed)
But the grace can be obtained by the sacrament or desire for it (Trent).(Theoretically only.The Council of Trent does not state that there are personally known cases of the baptism of desire.The liberal theologians and the Lefebvrists infer it)
Thus, the sacrament is only a relative, not an absolute necessity.(There is no relative necessity since there are no known exceptions to EENS).
That is why none of your references say baptism OF WATER is an absolute necessity.(.(There is no relative necessity since there are no known exceptions to EENS. When there are no practical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I how can you we talk of a necessity of means and precept or absolute or relative necessity.)
Whether BOD is known to God alone is not relevant to the Church's teaching that the grace of baptism can be obtained by desire. You deny the Church's teaching by characterizing it as an exception to EENS, which is also false.(For me the baptism of desire is always hypothetical. So it is not an exception to EENS.The SSPX official website presents BOD is an exception to EENS.The SSPX bishops cannot recant since then they would be criticizing Archbishop Lefebvre.They would also be saying that they made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II and even after being informed do not have it them to correct the mistake and admit that they were wrong.So perhaps in this sense you are obligated to deny reason and reality.)
The burden on you is to show where the Church teaches the sacramental water is an absolute necessity, and not just baptism. ( You agree with me when I say that the baptism of water is necessary for salvation.This is good enough for me. This is the magisterial teaching of the Church before Pius XII.Since BOD is still an exception to EENS for you and the Lefebvre traditionalists, you have to infer that you know of literal cases saved outside the Church without the baptism of water.Since there are literal cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, with BOD etc, it is important for you to make the distinction between absolute and relative.But not for me.
The baptism of water is defacto needed for salvation, this is the dogmatic teaching.This is the only baptism that we humans can know of .The other baptisms are speculation.Speculative baptisms of desire were never exceptions to EENS for the popes over the centuries before Pius XII.It never was an issue.When Trent mentions the desire thereof, it is to a speculative case.This would have been obvious to the popes of that time.It does not have to be announced or explained.)
Your reference to the Catechism of St Pius X proves too much for you and destroys your position because that same catechism teaches the grace of baptism can be obtained BY WATER OR DESIRE (just like the council taught), proving that the absolute necessity the catechism uses refers to the GRACE of baptism, NOT the water.(You agree that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in 2019.I repeat, you agree that there are no literal and personally known cases of BOD over the last 10 years or more.So what is the point in repeating this.You are a neo-Feeneyite.Soon your SSPX friends will disown you.
You are saying like Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in your reality. Like Fr. Leonard Feeney you are also saying that all need the baptism of water for salvation.So what's the issue? Welcome home!)
Again, because you cannot rebut the foregoing by showing the water (not just the grace) is an absolute necessity, this debate is over.( I did not know that this was a debate.I was simply having a discussion with a Catholic who says there are no literal cases known to him of a non Catholic saved in 2019 with the baptism of desire. So he would not know of any practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.I say the same. The popes before Pius XII have said the same. We do not have to choose between EENS and BOD. We can affirm both, they are compatible, as long as it is understood that there are no literal cases of BOD for us human beings.) -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 12, 2019
Traditionalist professors in England interpret Vatican Council II and EENS like the Westminster new programs on mission and catechesis
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/traditionalists-professors-in-england.html
JUNE 17, 2019
All the popes before Pius XII supported the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with BOD, BOB and I.I not referring to personally known non Catholics. So they were not exceptions to EENS. The popes could affirm EENS and BOD,BOB and I.I it was not either-or. They did not have to choose.Vatican Council II can be interpreted in the same way-in harmony with the popes and saints over the centuries on EENS
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/all-popes-since-pius-xii-supported.html
JUNE 17, 2019
The error was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Michael Davies and the traditionalists of their time,for whom BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. Then they made the same mistake in their interpretation of Vatican Council II. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were exceptions to EENS for them. The error can be read on line in one of the Letters to Friends and Benefactors written by Bishop Bernard Fellay.For him UR 3 was an exception to EENS
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-error-was-accepted-by-archbishop.html
JUNE 15, 2019
Lega members need to contact Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and write to Fr. Antonio Spadero: stop teaching the New Theology which is based upon a falsehood
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/lega-members-need-to-contact-cardinal.html
JUNE 12, 2019
Westminster offers new programs which re-interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and reject the traditional understanding of Mission and salvation
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/westminister-offers-new-programs-which.html
JUNE 11, 2019
The Church says that when I meet a non Catholic I know he or she is oriented to Hell
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-church-says-that-when-i-meet-non.html
JUNE 11, 2019
For me the present two popes and the CDF are heretical and irrational. They violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. It is the same error made my the traditionalists and sedevacantists in the interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/for-me-the-present-two-popes-and-cdf.html
JUNE 10, 2019
CDF is heretical and irrational and the evidence is there on lineJUNE 10, 2019
All the popes, Creeds and catechisms before Pope Pius XII support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston when the small 't' is not mistaken for being the big 'T'
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/all-popes-creeds-and-catechisms-before.html
JUNE 10, 2019
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment