Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Union and Alberto Melloni, Director of the FSCIRE are still interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This is unethical.It is deceptive.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Union and Alberto Melloni, Director of the FSCIRE are still interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This is unethical.It is deceptive. - Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________________

SEPTEMBER 9, 2023

The discovery

 

The discovery

We have a discovery today. It’s ‘a small point’ but this small point turns the Council around. From liberalism the Council returns to Tradition. So by ignoring this small point, we have liberalism in the Church. This small point, is the premise: the rational and irrational premise. It decides if Vatican Council II has a continuity or break with Tradition. This is the discovery. We now have a switch. We can turn it off or on. We can choose a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors or a rupture with Tradition.   -Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades

former Staff Reporter, daily Morning News, Karachi, Pakistan.

Recipient of the All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) Best Reporter of the Year Award, presented by the Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto.

Recipient of the Pakistan Government's Award for Literature ( Childrens stories).

Teacher of English and Church History at the Catholic Minor Seminary, Rawalpindi.                                                                                          

 

                                                            Bishop Anthony Lobo

Sent to Rome for Ministerial Priesthood by Bishop Anthony Lobo, bishop of Rawalpindi-Islamabad, Pakistan.

He is discriminated against by the pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome.He interprets Vatican Council II rationally and not irrationally. So there is a continuity with Tradition. He is not allowed to study at pontifical universities in  Rome,  where it is obligatory to interpret Magisterial Documents, irrationally and unethically.Catholic students and seminarians are discriminated against. 

The seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X, Albano, are allowed to study at the pontifical universities in Rome since they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally and this is approved by the Left.

Propaganda Fide only gives schorlarship for all students/ seminarians who are approved by a bishop, who does not interpret Vatican Council II, rationally and expects seminarians to do the same.

However we have a new discovery in the Catholic Church. There are 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, when it is interpreted rationally i.e LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases. So they are not objective examples of salvation. They are not objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.

It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.The Creeds must not be changed.

Why should Catholics choose an irrational version of the Creeds, Catechisms and Councils, which is heretical, non-traditional 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 and call it Catholic.

Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Balthazar, Kung, Lefebvre and Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally. The popes from Paul VI to Francis did the same. We can today choose to interpret the Council rationally and in harmony with Tradition.

Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/

Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

Residence temporary : Missionaries of Charity (Contemplative) Men of  Madre Teresa, Via di Sant’Agapito, 8, 00177 Roma RM ( near Largo Preneste and  Termini) Italy.

ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH      SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA

HEART OF THE MATTER

1.If Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS then it means that LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So they are exceptions for EENS etc.

2. If Vatican Council II is not a break with the dogma EENS then it means that LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc refer to invisible cases. They are not visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023. Invisible cases cannot be practical exceptions for me.So there is nothing in the text of Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.

A. Similarly if the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance refer to physically visible cases, of salvation outside the Church in 1949-2023, then this is Cushingism. It is irrational. There is a break with the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return.The Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q-outside the Church there is no salvation), has exceptions. There is a break with Tradition.

B. But if BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible cases, then they do not contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the ecumenism of return and the Catechism of Pope Pius X(24Q,27Q).There is no rupture with Tradition.

• When what is invisible is considered invisible, I call it Feeneyism.
• When what is invisible is considered visible, I call it a Cushingism.

We can interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

We can interpret BOD, BOB and I.I with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

So we can interpret the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed with Feeneyism or Cushingism. When these Creeds refer to BOD, BOB and I.I they can be Feeneyite or Cushingite. For example, (Nicene Creed-I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin ( and not three known baptisms). 

The Apostles Creed  (the Holy Spirit guides the  Holy Catholic Church  to say outside the Church there is no salvation and not outside the Church there is known salvation.

All need Catholic faith for salvation (Athanasius Creed).This is Feeneyism. But if it is said all need Catholic faith for salvation with some known exceptions then this is Cushingism.

The only holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Four Marks, Nicene Creed) in the past taught that outside the Church there is no salvation. What it teaches today depends upon you -if you are a Feeneyite or Cushingite.

In the same way there can two interpretations of Vatican Council II (LG 8,14,15,16 etc). It depends upon how you interpret LG 8 etc, with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

-Lionel Andrades

 AN APPLE IN A BOX OF ORANGES 

Consider these examples: 1) If there are seven patients in a TB sanatorium and one is cured then he is an exception there, not only because he is different but because he exists there in that ward. If he was not there he would not be an exception.

If there is an apple in a box of oranges then the apple is an exception in that box since it is different. If it was not there it would not be an exception. An invisible apple cannot be an exception.

Now we know that there are no visible cases of someone being saved, as referred to, in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. There are no such cases in our human reality. If anyone was saved as such it would only be known to God. So how can LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, be examples of salvation outside the Church? How can they be exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)? Invisible cases cannot be visible exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the exclusivist message also of the old Catechisms which are not contradicted by LG 8 etc, for me.

So for me there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

When we are back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology, there can be no New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Theology, New Evangelization, New Canon Law etc. Since the New Theology is based upon there being known salvation outside the Church, personally visible exceptions for the dogma EENS. The dogma EENS was made obsolete by confusing what is invisible as being visible.

So we are back to the old theology, with the old faith and morals. There is no denial from the FSCIRE, SSPX etc. There is no denial from the new Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. They agree with me. 

If anyone is saved according to LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc, it can only be known to God. We cannot say that there is, for example, a St.Emerentiana in Heaven saved without the baptism of water. We cannot know on earth. No one has seen her in Heaven without the baptism of water.

JANUARY 29, 2018

St.Emerentiana a possibility - how is she relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/stemerentiana-possibility-how-is-she.html

JULY 1, 2018

Archbishop Thomas E Gullickson and Father Stefano S.Visintin osb say there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality(Graphics)

-Lionel Andrades

______________________________________________________

Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (Updated)

1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.

2.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?

It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.

3.Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked? No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).

4.How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?

He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.

5.Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?

No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.

6.What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).

7.What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.

8.Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

9.What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.

’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.

For the present two popes and the traditionalists the red is an exception to the blue. This is irrational.

10.What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?

Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.

Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades

Fake premise

Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

Fake inference

They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

Fake conclusion

Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

Rational Premise

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

Rational Inference

They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

Rational Conclusion

Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.

The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/there-is-no-denial-from-congregation.html  

• Lionel Andrades in five steps (3)
• Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (1)
• Lionel Andrades' Catholic beliefs (8)
• Lionel Andrades' description of Feeneyism and Cushingism (6)
• Lionel Andrades' intepretation of Vatican Council II and Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (14)
• Lionel Andrades' Interpretation of Vatican Council II (1)
• Lionel Andrades' interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS (9)
• Lionel Andrades' interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS : Questions and Answers (9)

The Discovery (repost )

 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2023

The discovery

 

The discovery

We have a discovery today. It’s ‘a small point’ but this small point turns the Council around. From liberalism the Council returns to Tradition. So by ignoring this small point, we have liberalism in the Church. This small point, is the premise: the rational and irrational premise. It decides if Vatican Council II has a continuity or break with Tradition. This is the discovery. We now have a switch. We can turn it off or on. We can choose a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors or a rupture with Tradition.   -Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades

former Staff Reporter, daily Morning News, Karachi, Pakistan.

Recipient of the All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) Best Reporter of the Year Award, presented by the Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto.

Recipient of the Pakistan Government's Award for Literature ( Childrens stories).

Teacher of English and Church History at the Catholic Minor Seminary, Rawalpindi.                                                                                          

 

                                                            Bishop Anthony Lobo

Sent to Rome for Ministerial Priesthood by Bishop Anthony Lobo, bishop of Rawalpindi-Islamabad, Pakistan.

He is discriminated against by the pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome.He interprets Vatican Council II rationally and not irrationally. So there is a continuity with Tradition. He is not allowed to study at pontifical universities in  Rome,  where it is obligatory to interpret Magisterial Documents, irrationally and unethically.Catholic students and seminarians are discriminated against. 

The seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X, Albano, are allowed to study at the pontifical universities in Rome since they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally and this is approved by the Left.

Propaganda Fide only gives schorlarship for all students/ seminarians who are approved by a bishop, who does not interpret Vatican Council II, rationally and expects seminarians to do the same.

However we have a new discovery in the Catholic Church. There are 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, when it is interpreted rationally i.e LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases. So they are not objective examples of salvation. They are not objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.

It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.The Creeds must not be changed.

Why should Catholics choose an irrational version of the Creeds, Catechisms and Councils, which is heretical, non-traditional 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 and call it Catholic.

Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Balthazar, Kung, Lefebvre and Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally. The popes from Paul VI to Francis did the same. We can today choose to interpret the Council rationally and in harmony with Tradition.

Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/

Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

Residence temporary : Missionaries of Charity (Contemplative) Men of  Madre Teresa, Via di Sant’Agapito, 8, 00177 Roma RM ( near Largo Preneste and  Termini) Italy.

ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH      SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA

HEART OF THE MATTER

1.If Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS then it means that LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So they are exceptions for EENS etc.

2. If Vatican Council II is not a break with the dogma EENS then it means that LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc refer to invisible cases. They are not visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023. Invisible cases cannot be practical exceptions for me.So there is nothing in the text of Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.

A. Similarly if the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance refer to physically visible cases, of salvation outside the Church in 1949-2023, then this is Cushingism. It is irrational. There is a break with the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return.The Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q-outside the Church there is no salvation), has exceptions. There is a break with Tradition.

B. But if BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible cases, then they do not contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the ecumenism of return and the Catechism of Pope Pius X(24Q,27Q).There is no rupture with Tradition.

• When what is invisible is considered invisible, I call it Feeneyism.
• When what is invisible is considered visible, I call it a Cushingism.

We can interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

We can interpret BOD, BOB and I.I with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

So we can interpret the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed with Feeneyism or Cushingism. When these Creeds refer to BOD, BOB and I.I they can be Feeneyite or Cushingite. For example, (Nicene Creed-I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin ( and not three known baptisms). 

The Apostles Creed  (the Holy Spirit guides the  Holy Catholic Church  to say outside the Church there is no salvation and not outside the Church there is known salvation.

All need Catholic faith for salvation (Athanasius Creed).This is Feeneyism. But if it is said all need Catholic faith for salvation with some known exceptions then this is Cushingism.

The only holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Four Marks, Nicene Creed) in the past taught that outside the Church there is no salvation. What it teaches today depends upon you -if you are a Feeneyite or Cushingite.

In the same way there can two interpretations of Vatican Council II (LG 8,14,15,16 etc). It depends upon how you interpret LG 8 etc, with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

-Lionel Andrades