Thursday, November 30, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (Updated 30.11.2023 )
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican
Council II ?
It is a different way of looking at LG 8,14,15,16,UR
3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.
Why is it different?
It sees LG 8,14, 15,16 etc as being only hypothetical
cases. They refer to invisible people in 1965-2023. So they are not objective
examples of salvation in the present times . They are not exceptions for the
past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. They do not contradict the Council of
Florence (1442) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
We cannot see any one saved in imperfect communion
with the Church (UR 3) or where the Catholic Church subsists outside its
visible boundaries (LG 8). If any one was saved outside the Church it could
only be known to God.
So what ? Why is this important ?
Presently the popes, cardinals and bishops interpret
Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. LG 8, 14,. 15, 16 etc are exceptions
for the dogma EENS. The Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope
Pius IX are made obsolete by them. So they imply that LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA
2, GS 22 are objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not
invisible cases for them. This is irrational. The invisible- people- are-
visible premise is unethical. But this is the common way to create the
hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
What are the implications of the L.A interpretation?
We read the text of Vatican Council II differently. We
also read the text of other Church Documents (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
Dominus Iesus, Catechism of Pope Pius X, etc) differently. If the hypothetical
cases in Vatican Council II ( baptism of desire-LG 14 etc) are marked in red and the orthodox
passages which support the past ecclesiology are marked in blue, then the red passages do
not contradict the blue. Presently for most people
, the red is an exception for
the blue.
The Church has returned to the past faith and morals
based upon exclusive salvation in only the Church.This was Apostolic. It is a
return to the Church Fathers and to the missionaries of the 16th century.
Catholics can once again proclaim the Social Reign of
Christ the King in all politics, since Vatican Council II is in harmony with
Tradition.It is important for Governments and societies to be Catholic since in
Heaven there are only Catholics ( AG 7, LG 16, CCC 845,846 etc).
We have returned to the past Traditional Mission based
upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the necessity for all to be
members of the Catholic Church; to believe in Jesus in the Catholic Church
only, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
There can now only be the old ecumenism of return and
inter-religious dialogue will be missionary. The theological foundation will
now be a Vatican Council II which is orthodox and Magisterial.
It means the present interpretation of the popes,cardinals
and bishops, is irrational and so non Magisterial.
So why did the Council Fathers in 1965 not know all this ?
They repeated the objective mistake made
in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra
ecclesiam nulla salus, or, EENS according to the Church Councils. The Church
Councils (1215 etc) did not mention any exceptions.
Vatican Council II is no more liberal?
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Lefebvre and the others at
Vatican Council II in 1965 made a mistake when they accepted the New Theology
of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to
Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Letter issued by the Holy Office (CDF/DCF) wrongly
assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). This was an objective
error. Then based upon this mistake, Pope Paul VI also assumed that there were
exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So for him EENS
had become obsolete since there was known salvation outside the Church, for him
too. This was an irrational and liberal interpretation of the Council. Since we
now know that we cannot meet or see any one saved with the baptism of desire or
in invincible ignorance. Pope Paul VI also did not correct the error in the
1949 LOHO when he lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So now we can interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8,
14, 15, 16. UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being only invisible cases in 1965-2023.
We have a rational choice. The conclusion is traditional and in harmony with
EENS of the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.
Vatican Council II is no more liberal. For example,
Bishop Stephen Brady of the Anglican Ordinariate interpreted Vatican Council II
irrationally and liberally. Then he expected Fr. Vaughn Treco to do the same.
Since the Council interpreted irrationally would be a rupture with Tradition,
as expressed by the priest. The priest refused to accept Vatican Council II
(irrational) and stayed with Tradition. He was excommunicated.
The Council now supports Fr. Vaughn Treco when it is
interpreted rationally. It is Bishop Brady, who is in heresy (rejection of
EENS, changing the interpretation of the Creeds) with Vatican Council II,
irrational. He is in schism with the past Magisterium and he can no longer cite
the Council to support his new doctrines, which were rejected by Fr. Treco.
Those bishops who change the interpretation of the
Creeds or do not affirm the Creeds in their original meaning are automatically
excommunicated, according to the hierarchy of truths (Ad Tuendum Fidem) of Pope
John Paul II.
Do you
accept the Magisterium?
I accept the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Hypothetical cases of the baptism of
desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not
practical exceptions for EENS in 1949-2023. So I am interpreting EENS, BOD, BOB
and I.I rationally and in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries.
I accept
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I interpret LG 8,
LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being hypothetical.
They are invisible cases in 1965-2023.So I am interpreting Vatican Council II
and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally. For me they both have the
hermeneutic of continuity with the past. In the same way I accept and interpret
the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally.
The popes,
cardinals and bishops must do the same. They are not Magisterial when they
interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the
Creeds and the old Catechisms irrationally and dishonestly.
I affirm the
Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed, which I interpret rationally. The popes,
cardinals, bishops, priests and religious sisters must do the same.
I am a
Catholic and in general I accept magisterial teachings.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-lionel-andrades-interpretation.html
Posts
