- Lionel Andrades
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Pope Francis is following the Left. But so is Catholic Answers, EWTN, National Catholic Register, Life Site News, Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Edward Pentin Exposes the Synod on Synodality
Edward Pentin is one of the most important Vatican journalists of the Francis era. He is the author of the book The Rigging of a (2014) Vatican Synod?: An Investigation of Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family. That book exposed the underhanded efforts to sideline traditionalists and conservatives at the 2014 Synod on the Family.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/11/edward-pentin-exposes-synod-on.html#more
Pope Francis, the cardinals and numerous people have said that the
Synods are based upon Vatican Council II. They mean Vatican Council II
interpreted irrationally and politically. This is also the political
interpretation of Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, Catholic Answers,
National Catholic Reporter, Church Militant TV, Life Site News….
So what is Pentin complaining about?
He has approved the false theology upon which Vatican Council II is
interpreted to produce the liberalism his employers support.
If he interpreted Vatican Council II rationally and wrote about it then
he could say that there is no theological basis for the Synods. Since Vatican
Council II is traditional, ecclesiocentric and Feeneyites.
Ah! But then he would be accused of this and that by the Synod and he
would lose his precious job.
So he too keeps quiet on this subject.
Pope Francis is following the Left. But so is Catholic Answers, EWTN, National Catholic Register, Life Site News, Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Also in tow are Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara.
The Conferences are Cushingite and politically correct. No conference dares to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and challenges the popes, cardinals and bishops to do the same.
Bishop Joseph Strickland left as a Cushingite. He was not a Feeneyite on Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Councils.- Lionel Andrades
Repost : Pope Francis and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally and call it ‘the new Magisterium’.
OCTOBER 1, 2023
Pope Francis and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally and call it ‘the new Magisterium’.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2023
Pope Francis and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally and call it ‘the new Magisterium’.
Pope Francis and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally and call it ‘the new Magisterium’. This is heresy. It is schism with the Magisterium over the centuries. It is also dishonest to interpret the Council irrationally to create a false break with Tradition. - Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Fernández claims opposition to Pope Francis’ ‘unique charism’ risks ‘heresy and schism’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-fernandez-claims-opposition-to-pope-francis-unique-charism-risks-heresy-and-schism/?utm_source=more_news&utm_campaign=usa
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
The cardinals and bishops, Fernandez included are already in heresy and schism
OCTOBER 1, 2023
The cardinals and bishops, Fernandez included are already in heresy and schism
SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
The cardinals and bishops, Fernandez included are already in heresy and schism
- Lionel AndradesSEPTEMBER 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
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA
Il parroco è d'accordo con me. Non ci sono casi visibili di essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e nel battesimo del desiderio nei tempi attuali.
OCTOBER 1, 2023
Il parroco è d'accordo con me. Non ci sono casi visibili di essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e nel battesimo del desiderio nei tempi attuali.
1 OTTOBRE 2023
Il parroco è d'accordo con me. Non ci sono casi visibili di essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e nel battesimo del desiderio nei tempi attuali. Ieri ho parlato con Don Paulo Boumis, parroco della chiesa di San Agapito, a Roma. Non ha avuto obiezioni quando detto che il battesimo del desiderio (BOD) e la salvezza nell'ignoranza invincibile (I. I) si riferivano a casi invisibili. Sono sempre ipotetici. Era d'accordo con me.
Questo punto è centrale nel mio scritto.
Cosi lui è d'accordo con me quando affermo che il battesimo di desiderio e salvezza nell’invincibile ignoranza,non fanno eccezione alla tradizionale interpretazione rigida del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Nel 2003 vivevo nella casa maschile delle Missionarie della Carità (contemplativa) di Madre Teresa, che si trova in questa parrocchia. A quel tempo credevo nel dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e sapevo che questo insegnamento non poteva essere cambiato. Eppure la Lumen Gentium 16 lo contraddice. Quindi l’EENS era obsoleto a Roma per il cardinale Ratzinger.
Col tempo, con l'aiuto di Gesù, della Madonna e del mio Angelo Custode, ho avuto un'intuizione. Ciò mi è stato confermato da un sacerdote. Mi sono reso conto che LG 14, LG 16 ecc. era sempre ipotetici. Così la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio all'arcivescovo di Boston, relativa a p. Leonard Feeney (LOHO), ha commesso un errore. Il BOD e I.I non contraddicono Feeneyite EENS.
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Bea, Balthazar, Lefebvre e Kung hanno commesso un errore quando non hanno corretto l'errore nel LOHO del 1949. L’hanno invece ripetuto nel Concilio Vaticano II. Sembra che si voglia eliminare il dogma EENS in ogni modo possibile.
Per me, non c'era nulla nel Concilio Vaticano II che contraddicesse l'EENS Feeneyista. Non c'erano eccezioni per l'EENS del Concilio Lateranense IV (1215).
LA SUA CATECHESI È UNA ROTTURA CON IL PASSATO. LA MIA È UNA CONTINUITÀ
Quindi stavo dicendo a p. Paulo che quando questo mese terrà la catechesi per gli adulti in parrocchia, interpreterà il Concilio Vaticano II come una rottura con l'EENS. Nelle mie catechesi, il Concilio ha una continuità con l'EENS e il resto della Tradizione. Per lui LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 ecc si riferirebbero a 1) casi fisicamente visibili; 2) persone conosciute salvate al di fuori della Chiesa e 3) eccezioni pratiche per il dogma EENS, il Credo di Atanasio ecc. È solo con questa irrazionalità che si potrebbe creare una rottura con la Tradizione.
Per me LG 8,14,16 ecc. si riferirebbe a casi invisibili, persone sconosciute e invisibili e quindi non fanno eccezione al passato ecclesiocentrismo, alla passata ecclesiologia esclusivista della Chiesa Cattolica.
ITNERPRETARE IL CONCILIO VATICANO II CON FEENEYISMO O CUSHINGISMO
Per afferrare questo concetto e spiegarlo più facilmente, ho chiamato, confondendo i casi invisibili con quelli visibili, Cushingism.Don Paolo era un Cushingita come i papi da Paolo VI a Francesco. Quando i casi invisibili sono visti semplicemente come invisibili, lo chiamo Feeneyismo. Interpreto il Concilio Vaticano II con Feeneyismo e non Cushingismo.
Mi rendo conto che sono l'unico in parrocchia a interpretare razionalmente il Concilio Vaticano II. Gli altri in parrocchia interpretano irrazionalmente il Concilio Vaticano II come i papi e i Prefetti del Dicastero per la Dottrina della Fede (già CDF), Vaticano.
IL PARROCO INTERPRETA IRRAZIONAMENTE I DOCUMENTI MAGISTRALI
Ho informato il parroco che stavo affermando tutti i Documenti Magistrali che avevo interpretato razionalmente (le persone invisibili sono invisibili, LG 16 ecc si riferisce a casi invisibili nel 2023). Mentre lui ha accettato tutti i Documenti Magistrali e li ha interpretati in modo irrazionale.
PAPA PIO XII NON MAGISTRALE SUL BDD E I.I
La LOHO del 1949 non era magistrale quando prevedeva che BOD e I.I fossero eccezioni per EENS. Posso accettare la prima parte della LOHO che affermava l'EENS tradizionale. Poiché la seconda parte è irrazionale e contraddice la prima, non può essere magistrale. La conclusione della LOHO del 1949 è che non è necessario che tutti siano membri della Chiesa per la salvezza. Questo è eretico e scismatico.
Si tratta di una rottura con il Magistero della Chiesa Cattolica precedente al 1949, che sosteneva la tradizionale interpretazione esclusivista dell’EENS.
Quando Papa Pio XII permise alla LOHO del 1949 di proiettare casi invisibili di BOD e I. I come eccezioni fisicamente visibili per EENS, non era Magisterale. Quindi il Concilio Vaticano II non è Magistrale quando è interpretato con questo ragionamento irrazionale.
I preti della parrocchia, bisogna accettano l'errore della LOHO, interpreteranno il Concilio Vaticano II come una rottura con “la fede dei Padri”. Per loro c'è rottura in ogni Messa, rito e liturgia. Ciò è previsto quando accettano la Nuova Teologia della LOHO che si basa su una falsa premessa. Evito la falsa premessa. Con la premessa razionale ritorno all'Antica Teologia e agli insegnamenti dei santi, dei papi, dei Padri della Chiesa e degli Apostoli.
NON POTEVA NEGARE CHE IL BOD AND I.I SONO SEMPRE INVISIBILE
È stato difficile per p. Paulo ad accettare che il suo insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II, sostenuto da tutta la Chiesa, non era magisterale. Eppure non poteva negare che il BOD e l'I.I sono sempre invisibili.
Vent'anni fa in parrocchia mi è stato detto che BOD e I.I erano eccezioni per EENS. Ora 20 anniÈ stato difficile per p. Paulo ad accettare che il suo insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II, sostenuto da tutta la Chiesa, non era magisteriale. Eppure non poteva negare che il BOD e l'I.I sono sempre invisibili.
Vent'anni fa in parrocchia mi è stato detto che BOD e I.I erano eccezioni per EENS. Ora, 20 anni dopo, non possono più dirlo. Né possono negare che la loro interpretazione del Concilio Vaticano II non sia magistrale.-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 1, 2023
Repost : Parish priest agrees with me. There are no visible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in the present times
OCTOBER 1, 2023
Parish priest agrees with me. There are no visible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in the present times
Yesterday I spoke with Father Paulo Boumis, the parish priest at the church San Agapito, in Rome. He had no objections when I said that the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) referred to invisible cases. They are always hypothetical.He agreed with me.
This point is central in my writing.
So he agrees with me when I say that the BOD and I.I are not exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
In 2003 I was living at the Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity (contemplative) home for men, which is in this parish. At that time I believed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I knew that this teaching could not be changed. Yet Lumen Gentium 16 contradicted it. So EENS was obsolete in Rome for Cardinal Ratzinger.
Over time, with the help of Jesus, Our Lady and my Guardian Angel, I had an insight.This was was confirmed by a priest. I realized that LG 14, LG 16 etc, were always hypothetical. So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO), made a mistake. The BOD and I.I do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Bea, Balthazar, Lefebvre and Kung made a mistake when they did not correct the error in the 1949 LOHO. Instead they repeated it at Vatican Council II. It seems as if they wanted to do away with the dogma EENS, in any way possible.
For me, there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.There were no exceptions for the EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
HIS CATECHESIS IS A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST MINE IS A CONTINUITY
So I was telling Fr. Paulo that when he has his catechesis for adults in the parish this month, he will interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS. In my catechesis, the the Council has a continuity with EENS and the rest of Tradition. For him LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc would refer to 1) physically visible cases; 2) known people saved outside the Church and 3) practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.It is only with this irrationality that he could create a break with Tradition.
For me LG 8,14,16 etc would refer to invisible cases, unknown and invisible people and so they are not exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism, the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
ITNERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FEENEYISM OR CUSHINGISM
To get a handle on this concept and explain it more easily, I called, confusing invisible cases as being visible, Cushingism.Fr. Paulo was a Cushingite like the popes from Paul VI to Francis. When invisible cases are seen as just being invisible, I call it Feeneyism. I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.I realize that I am the only one in the parish interpreting Vatican Council II rationally.The others in the parish interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like the popes and the Prefects of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ( formerly CDF), Vatican.
THE PARISH PRIEST INTERPRETS MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS IRRATIONALLY
I informed the parish priest that I was affirming all Magisterial Documents which I interpreted rationally ( invisible people are invisible, LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases in 2023).While he accepted all Magisterial Documents and interpreted them with irrationally.
POPE PIUS XII NOT MAGISTERIAL ON BOD AND I.I- INTERPRETATION
The 1949 LOHO was not Magisterial when it projected BOD and I.I as being exceptions for EENS. I can accept the first part of LOHO which affirmed traditional EENS. Since the second part is irrational and contradicts the first part it cannot be Magisterial.The conclusion of the 1949 LOHO is that everyone does not need to be a member of the Church for salvation. This is heretical and schismatic.
It is a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church which upheld the traditional exclusivist interpretation of EENS.
When Pope Pius XII allowed the 1949 LOHO to project invisible cases of BOD and I.I as being physically visible exceptions for EENS it was not Magisterial.So Vatican Council II is not Magisterial when it is interpreted with this irrational reasoning.
So the priests in the parish, because they accept the error in the LOHO, will be interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with 'the faith of the Fathers'.For them there is rupture at every Mass, rite and liturgy. This is expected when they accept the New Theology of the LOHO which is based upon the fake premise. I avoid the false premise. With the rational premise I return to the Old Theology and the teachings of the saints, popes, Church Fathers and Apostles.
It was difficult for Fr. Paulo to accept that his teaching of Vatican Council II, supported by the whole Church, was not Magisterial. Yet he could not deny that the BOD and I.I are always invisible.
Twenty years back in the parish I was told that BOD and I.I were exceptions for EENS. Now 20 years later they can no more says this.Neither can they deny that their interpretation of Vatican Council II is not Magisterial.
I- Lionel Andrades
https://parrocchiasantagapito.jimdofree.com/attivit%C3%A0-orari-e-contatti/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
