Wednesday, August 30, 2023
The US Embassy and Consulate in Rome and Vatican City still interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This is unethical. It is the same with the Paulist Fathers and the North American College (seminary), in Rome.
The US Embassy and Consulate in Rome and Vatican City still interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This
is unethical. It is the same with the Paulist Fathers and the North American
College (seminary), in Rome.
They need to clarify that LG 8, LG 14,LG 15, LG 16, UR
3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases,
always.
This needs to be clarified also by the Vatican
Secretary of State and the Italian Foreign Ministry. - Lionel Andrades
Repost : In the fifth and fifteenth century at the Basilica of St. Mary Majors, Rome the theology was Feeneyite and not Cushingite
AUGUST 5, 2023
In the fifth and fifteenth century at the Basilica of St. Mary Majors, Rome the theology was Feeneyite and not Cushingite
Today is the feast of the Dedication of the Basilica of St. Mary Majors in Rome when the Catholic Church was Feeneyite. Priests, bishops, cardinals and popes today also must be Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
A Cushingite Church is a heretical Church. It is a break with the 5th century Catholic Church after the Council of Ephesus.
For me the Catholic Church has not moved from the 5th century, since I am a Feeneyite. For Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops it has moved since their new theology is Cushingite.
When they refer to Vatican Council II they mean Vatican Council II Cushingite.
For me Vatican Council II is always Feeneyite.
So today it is not enough to vaguely refer to Vatican Council II.
It has to be qualified if it is Vatican Council II , Feeneyite or Cushingite, rational or irrational, a continuation with tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) or a rupture with EENS.
- For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to invisible cases. So I am a Feeneyite.
- For the cardinals who will be appointed next month, LG (, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2023. So they are Cushingites.
In other words , there are practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, for them.They are examples of salvation outside the Church.So they have made EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q-outside the Church there is no salvation), obsolete.Outside the Church there is known salvation, in personal cases for them.It has to be known salvation.
But invisible people cannot be practical exceptions for EENS.Invisible people who are not there cannot make the Syllabus of Errors obsolete.An exception must exist for it to be an exception.
So the 21 cardinals imply that what is invisible for me is visible for them.So outside the Church there is known salvation for them.This was the new theology, the new theology of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, which they accept.
Cushingites say what is invisible is visible.
Feeneyites say what is invisible is invisible.
In the 15th century they interpreted the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with Feeneyism. So there were no practical exceptions for traditional EENS, of the Church Fathers and the Apostles.-Lionel Andrades
_________________
JULY 28, 2023
Things have changed in the Church. You can know more tell me that you justify your liberalism with Vatican Council, since I can justify my orthodoxy, also with Vatican Council II
TALKS ON VATICAN COUNCIL II BEING IN HARMONY WITH TRADITION AND THERE BEING TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COUNCIL, ONE IS RATIONAL AND THE OTHER IS IRRATIONAL.
If you are a group of Catholics, liberal or traditionalist, I am willing to speak about this subject. I can present the material on this blog in an orderly way for you to understand quickly what I keep writing about. I available am in Rome ( only Rome) and there is no charge. The information will be given free. It will be illustrated with some graphics and photos.
I am a Catholic and I affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church as I have said often on this blog.
The difference between me and Catholics in general and also the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is that they interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms, Councils etc irrationally and I am rational.
I choose a rational premise and inference and so my conclusion is traditional.
The presentation could take 20 minutes or less.I will be available to answer questions.I do not have any new theology to offer. I simply avoid an irrational observation and we return to the old theology of the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century at the Latin Mass. This would be the general theology today, which is honest and rational, at every Mass and every Rite. It would have to be the lex orandi.
Please e-mail me at : lionelandrades10@gmail.com
p.s I do not have a telephone contact number and do not travel out of Rome.
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA
Lionel Andrades
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.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
It is unethical when the popes, cardinals and bishops choose the Irrational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents.
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/
Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
Repost : Things have changed in the Church. You can know more tell me that you justify your liberalism with Vatican Council, since I can justify my orthodoxy, also with Vatican Council II
JULY 28, 2023
Things have changed in the Church. You can know more tell me that you justify your liberalism with Vatican Council, since I can justify my orthodoxy, also with Vatican Council II
TALKS ON VATICAN COUNCIL II BEING IN HARMONY WITH TRADITION AND THERE BEING TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COUNCIL, ONE IS RATIONAL AND THE OTHER IS IRRATIONAL.
If you are a group of Catholics, liberal or traditionalist, I am willing to speak about this subject. I can present the material on this blog in an orderly way for you to understand quickly what I keep writing about. I available am in Rome ( only Rome) and there is no charge. The information will be given free. It will be illustrated with some graphics and photos.
I am a Catholic and I affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church as I have said often on this blog.
The difference between me and Catholics in general and also the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is that they interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms, Councils etc irrationally and I am rational.
I choose a rational premise and inference and so my conclusion is traditional.
The presentation could take 20 minutes or less.I will be available to answer questions.I do not have any new theology to offer. I simply avoid an irrational observation and we return to the old theology of the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century at the Latin Mass. This would be the general theology today, which is honest and rational, at every Mass and every Rite. It would have to be the lex orandi.
Please e-mail me at : lionelandrades10@gmail.com
p.s I do not have a telephone contact number and do not travel out of Rome.
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA
Lionel Andrades
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.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
It is unethical when the popes, cardinals and bishops choose the Irrational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents.
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/
Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
The traditionalists and liberals interpret Vatican Council II, with Cushingism; with the false premise. This is an objective error.
The traditionalists and liberals interpret Vatican Council II,
with Cushingism; with the false premise. This is an objective error. They are
confusing what is invisible as being visible. Then they imply that there are known
and visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present
times. Then they produce a New Theology which says outside the Church there is
salvation, there is known salvation.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Catholic Tradition, are obsolete. Vatican Council II becomes a ‘revolution’
in the Church, a new revelation.
I avoid this mistake. For me, LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS
22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases, always. This is common sense. You do not
have to be a Catholic to realize this. We obviously cannot meet or see any one
in 2023 who is saved outside the Catholic Church, with the baptism of desire (LG
14), invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11) or good and holy
things in other religions (NA 2).
But for the liberals and traditionalists, LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA2, GS
22 etc, in Vatican Council II, refer to physically visible cases in the present
times. They refer to non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and baptism
(AG 7 etc). So for them LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS,
the Athanasius Creed and an ecumenism of return to the Church.
For me, LG 8 etc are not a rupture with EENS and the rest of Tradition,
in particular the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.
So we have two interpretations. For them Vatican Council II is a break
with Tradition and for me it is a continuity with Tradition.
Now after reading this they may say that LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc are also
hypothetical cases for them. True. But when they interpret Vatican Council II
as a break with EENS, they imply that these are visible cases, practical exceptions for EENS.
Both the Lefebvrists and progressivists are not affirming Feeneyite
EENS. So they are still saying that LG 8 etc refer to physically visible cases.
Invisible people cannot be exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.
Instead they are affirming the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the
Archbishop of Boston. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and
being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible and practical exceptions
for Feeneyite EENS. So the LOHO concluded that outside the Church there is
known salvation and so not everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic
Church, for salvation from Hell.
This contradicts the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of
Florence (1442) which said the opposite- all need to enter the Church for
salvation and there are no known exceptions.
So today for the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Una Voce, Coetus International, La Nuova Bussola, Gloria TV, the organizers of the Synods, the Anglican Ordinariate and cardinals Kasper, Koch and Semeraro, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
We have unity in this error among the liberals and conservatives.I avoid this mistake.
The New York Times interprets Vatican Council II as a break with
Tradition, when their correspondents confused invisible cases of the baptism of
desire, being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood, as being
visible- but the conservative Catholic apologetic magazine in Italy, Il Timone,
makes the same mistake.
The editors of the newspapers Il Messaggerro and Correspondenza Romana of Roberto dei Mattei are irrational in their interpretation of the BOD, BOB
and I.I. So they are also irrational on Vatican Council II and the Creeds. They
do not deny it.
All these publications, including those of the Society of St. Pius X, should be objecting to the appointment of the 21 new cardinals next month, because these cardinals interpret Vatican Council II irrationally producing new versions of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. This is contrary to Canon Law. Since according to Canon Law a juridical person must affirm the teachings of the Church. The Creeds in their original, is obligatory.- Lionel Andrades
Posts
