Lionel's blog
Edward
Pentin and Diane Montagna are still looking after their Press accreditation and
credentials with the Vatican. So they interpret Vatican Council II
irrationally. It is prohibited for political reasons, for them to affirm Feeneyite extra eccleisam nulla salus (EENS). - Lionel Andrades
The reports
on the blog 1Peter5 and Crisis magazine, supporting the SSPX, are polite
propaganda.They avoid the salvation issue.
The reports
are politically correct and are approved by prudent supporters who call themselves traditionalists. They
allow the liberal media to also call them traditionalists.
These
reports do not mention that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally
and then there is no rupture with Feeneyite EENS and Tradition.The Council supports the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
In an interview with John Henry Weston, Eric Sammons, when commenting on Sammons book, actually denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) which does not mention any exceptions. The editor of Life Site News does the same. –Lionel AndradesL
When Taylor Marshall and Eric Sammons in this video interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise, false inference and non traditional conclusion they are also re-interpreting the Athanasius, Apostles and Nicene Creeds with the false premise and so are changing the traditional meaning of the Creeds. They would also be re-interpreting the Catechisms, irrationally.In this way they support the liberals.-Lionel Andrades
Both of them in this video have missed the point. The New Ecumenism comes from a precise doctrinal and theological change. A subtle false premise. The New Evangelisation comes from the same New Theology.We cannot re-claim Traditional Mission with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades
Eric Sammons used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and then suggest there is known salvation outside the Church; visible non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance( all without the baptism of water).In this way they became practical exceptions to the 'absolutist' category of salvation, the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.
So his Salvation Spectrum includes the speculative categories exclusivist, reserved,moderate, expansive, pluralist, universalist.
With these categories exclusivist, reserved,moderate, expansive, pluralist and universalist, created with the false premise, he projects practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.He is also rejecting the absolutist interpretation found in the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
- Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 14, 2021
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he chooses the New Theology.
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he supports the New Theology.
Secondly Fr. Leonard Feeney was not condemned for his strict interpretation of EENS. The excommunication was lifted with him having to recite the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation. Vatican Council II has the same message. Ad Gentes 7 states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So if he interpreted the Council II and EENS rationally there would be no ‘ongoing debate on extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ as he has titled a report on Crisis Magazine.
In order to make the Salvation Spectrum more understandable, I’ve created a chart to lay out the various views:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-ongoing-debate-over-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus
If Eric Sammons interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS like Lionel Andrades and not the liberal professor of theology, Gavin D’Costa at the University of Bristol, England his interpretation would be rational and traditional. Now it is liberal and still political, like that of Joseph Shaw, John Rao, the late Mons. Brunero Gherardino and Jim Russel the liberal contributor to Crisis Magazine.They all accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 from which Sammons gets his New Theology. The Letter employs the false premise to produce schism and heresy which is officially approved by the popes.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
Bishop Richard Williamson and Fr. Florian Abrahowich who were expelled by the SSPX for political reasons are both still interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally. They seem clueless.They affirm the Zionist approved irrational interpretation.If they interpreted Vatican Council II rationally they would be Anti Semitic.So now they are not Anti Semitic on this issue.
Practically, to maintain good relations with the Jewish Left, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Fr. Franz Schmidberger and Fr. Nicholas Pfluger interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. -Lionel Andrades
When I ask Fr.
Federico Montani questions about the Catholic Faith, he tells me to ask the
District Superior, Albano Lazio. Why? Is not the Catholic Faith the same for
him and the Superior?
No it is
not.
It is not
the Catholic Faith of Tradition for the both of them. It differs, because they
both choose the same false premise to interpret Vatican Council II. So the
Council is political and not Catholic.
This is now
a political issue.
Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre accepted the mistake of the main line Church in 1965. He did
not correct the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office .This was about
the time of the creation of the new state of Israel. It was as if he wanted a break with Tradition, as if he did not know that the Council could be intepreted rationally and there would be a continuity with the past.
The
interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre
was irrational and so politically correct in Israel. It was not Anti Semitic.
So the SSPX irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, even after being informed all these years, is political and deceptive. It is unethical. It is dishonest for Catholics who continue with this falsehood. - Lionel Andrades
If the SSPX today interprets Vatican Council II
rationally this will be Anti Semitic for the Jewish Left, for then the SSPX
would be saying there are no exceptions in the text of Vatican Council II for
the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) etc.They would be Feeneyite on both extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II.
So there is confusion in the catechesis of the SSPX.It
is a doctrinal rupture with the past.
In this sense, the SSPX are not traditionalists.They
interpret the Council like the liberal cardinals and bishops.
This is why Fr. Federico Montani cannot speak freely
on Church doctrine and theology. - Lionel Andrades
The Italian priest of the SSPX who offers the Latin Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome on Sunday
mornings is not following Tradition, because of the Italian police who enforce
Leftist ideology. It is the same at the Catholic mainline churches in Rome.
The priest
Father Federico Montani cannot affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the
Council of Florence (1442) which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
(EENS) and did not mention any exceptions.
This goes well
with the police who are present at Mass in the churches to monitor what the priest
proclaims.
The Left
gives its approval for Satanic things which send a person to Hell-fires, and
they call it ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. But Fr. Federico Montani does not have the freedom to sasy outside the Church there is no salvation. There is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
Neither would he be allowed to endorse Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it supports Feeneyite EENS.This is when hypothetical cases are not projected as exceptions for EENS. -Lionel Andrades
I go for Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome and the Italian priest there is not willing to affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) which was issued at the time of Pope Honorious III and St. Dominic Guzman. It says outside the Church there is no salvation and does not mention any exceptions. For me, hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions for the 12th century Magisterium.
But the SSPX priest
cannot say this .In reality, he does not want to say anything. Yet he would say
that he is a traditionalist and is following traditional doctrine and theology.- Lionel Andrades
Peter
and Michael Dimond have produced another
video in which they do not interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc,
in Vatican Council II, rationally.So their interpretation of the Council
contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus(EENS).It is the same with the SSPX and CMRI.
They negate the dogma EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442).There were no exceptions mentioned in the 12th to 16 century. When the saints mentioned the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it was always to a hypothetical case. This is something obvious. They did not have to explain it.
So when I interpret Vatican Council II rationally, there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II for the dogma EENS. Peter and Michael Dimond do not do this. If they interpreted LG 8,14 and 16 rationally there would be nothing in Lumen Gentium to contradict the MHFM interpretation of EENS.
I have mentioned this so many times.They interpret Vatican Councl II irrationally like the main line Church which they refer to as 'the Vatican Council II sect'.Peter Dimond often uses the phrase 'as we have covered before' . I could say the same- that, I have said all this before.
If they choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally then they would have to admit that they were wrong all these years.They were irrational all these years like the SSPX and CMRI.
They are not willing to discuss this subject and did not respond on Twitter.
I have only one question : do LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 1965- 2023 or are they references to objective cases, known and visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church ?
Peter does not note that when Bishop Donald Sanborn says that non Catholics in other religions can be saved he refers to a hypothetical case.
If they are saved because of some reason and not because of their religion, it still is a hypothetical case. It exists only in the mind.
If they are saved in general in their religion it still is a hypothetical case.
If they are not saved in general in their religion it stil is a hypothetical case.
A hypothetical and speculative case cannot be an objective exception for the dogma EENS.
The confusion between what is explicit and implicit, objective and subjective was there in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Pope Pius XII wanted Fr. Leonard Feeney to say that invisible cases were objective exceptions for the Church Councils of 1215 and 1442.
If someone is saved in another religion it is a theoretical possibility only. It is hypothetical.
In the same way if someone refers to people in another religion, over the last 60 years, not being saved at all, it still is a possibility. Either way it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.It exists only in the mind.
For example, Ralph Martin, a professor of theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, USA, says people can be saved in another religion, it is a possibility. O.K.He could also say that people were not saved in other religions over the last 2000 years- this is a possibility- when you consider the Catholic dogma EENS. Either way it is hypothetical.It does not contradict EENS.It is not relevant to EENS. It was LOHO which wrongly made it relevant. The popes from Pius XII have not corrected this mistake in the LOHO which was placed in the Denzinger and referenced in Vatican Council II.
When someone receives the baptism of water it is practical. It is explicit. It is objective.It is not hypothetical. We cannot give someone the baptism of desire. We cannot verify being saved in invincible ignorance, or good will ( GS 22), elements of sanctification and truth in other religions (LG 8) etc. They are not objective.
The moment someone says that there are exceptions for EENS in the present times, he or she implies, that invisible people in Heaven are visible on earth.
It is upon this irratianality that we have the New Theology.
The New Theology is used to criticize 'Feeneyism' which does not choose the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).
To be a Feeneyite is to return to the old theology and reject Vatican Council II ( irrational).
Trent Horn and Michael Lofton confuse theoretical possibilities as being known non Catholics in particular cases, over the last 100 years, who are saved outside the Church. This is irrational. How can they be known to us ? Who saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water?
How do we know if the Good Thief on the cross was not baptised with water?
Even if he was not- and went to Abraham's Bosom like the others after the Resurrection- we do not know of any such case in real life in the present times. There is no known Dismas in 2023.
If a 10 year old Jewish girl is saved or not saved, how would Bradley Eli know?
We know it is, and has been, a Catholic dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation. Physically, we cannot know of any exception. There are none in real life, to contradict our Faith.EENS is supported by Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) with BOD, BOB and I.I not being exceptins. EENS is supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846) with CCC 847-848 (invincible ignorance) not being exceptions.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
