Is Mary appearing in a field near Rome?

https://lareginadelrosario.org/la-vera-conversione/

Messaggio : Trevignano Romano 03 dicembre 2023

 

MESSAGGI DICEMBRE 2023

Trevignano Romano 03 dicembre 2023

Figli amati, grazie per aver risposto alla mia chiamata nel vostro cuore. Figli, vi supplico, convertitevi, non avete più tempo, concentratevi per la vita eterna in paradiso dove il Padre vi attende. Figli amati, pregate per la mia amata chiesa, fate attenzione ai Lupi travestiti da agnelli che distraggono il mio gregge portandolo nella confusione. Figli prediletti (sacerdoti) dovete capire che la strada da voi intrapresa è la strada che porterà nel baratro. Chiedo ai miei pastori: siate santi, retti e giusti, seguite la vera dottrina della fede prima che l’apostasia possa essere conclamata. Ora vi benedico nel nome della Santissima Trinità, amen. 

                            https://lareginadelrosario.org/

What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (Updated 05.12.2023 )

 

DECEMBER 2, 2023

What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (Updated 02.12.2023 )

 

 

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 16^th 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.

How can the popes be wrong and you be correct?

We have Aristotle’s Principle of Non Contradiction as a measure. There must also not be a rupture between faith and reason. There must not be a rupture, also, with the Magisterium over the centuries.

On all these counts Pope Francis fails.

Pope Francis violates the Principle of Non Contradiction when he assumes invisible on earth, non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, are visible in Heaven and on earth at the same time.

Also for him invisible cases of being saved with the baptism of desire are visible on earth. People who are now in Heaven are visible on earth, at the same time for him. So they are practical exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for him.He needs practical exceptions otherwise he will be a Feeneyite on EENS but with the exceptions he violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.

So his conclusion is that since there are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Fourth Lateran Council 1215 etc) outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation. There has to be known salvation outside the Church for him to have exceptions for the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. This is the New Theology for him.

I cannot see people saved, who are visible on earth and Heaven at the same time. I cannot see people in Heaven. For me there are no practical exceptions for the dogma EENS.

So 1) I am not saying I can see non Catholics saved in Heaven and earth at the same time. 2) I am not saying invisible people are visible.In general, this would be bad reasoning.3). I am in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries before 1949. They were Feeneyite like me and not Cushingite like Pope Francis.

So I not violating the Principle of Non Contradiction like the pope. I am not creating a rupture between traditional faith and reason. I am not using the Cushingite, false premise to produce new doctrines on salvation, which would be a rupture with the salvation doctrine as it was known to the Church Fathers and in the Middle Ages.Pope Francis cannot say the same. 

Are you creating unity or division in the Church ?

 There can only be unity with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. This is the honest option.

The Synods are justified with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and dishonestly. This cannot be the basis for unity in the Catholic Church.

Are you a traditionalist ?

We do not have to  interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils and Catechisms)  like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.Rorate Caeili ( web blog) is obsolete too.I am not a Lefebvrist.They are Cushingites ( invisible people are visible for them). I am a Feeneyite ( invisible people in 2023 are invisible for me).

Una Voce, Latin Mass Societies, Roberto dei Mattei's publications and the Ecclesia Dei communities  still follow the error of 1965  which Pope Paul VI did not correct.

I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and when possible the Latin Mass. I follow the old ecclesiology of the Church, irrespective of the liturgy or Mass.Since, the Council is in harmony with Tradition, for me, at every Mass and liturgy.

We are back to Traditional Mission ?

 Yes. It is now Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. There is no more the New Evangelisation which is Christocentric only and not Ecclesiocentric too. It could not be ecclesiocentric when Vatican Council II was interpreted irrationally. This produced exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which was made obsolete, with this dishonesty.

The New Evangelisation based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, supported the New Ecumenism. With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, we return to the Old Ecumenism of Return to the Church.It is  based upon the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II.

And the sedevacantists? 

The sedevacantists Bishop Mark Pivarunas and his community, the CMRI, Bishop Donald Sanborn and the late Fr. Anthony Cekada and Peter and Michael Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. For them Lumen Gentium 8 etc is a break with Tradition. So the reject the Council ( irrational), while using the false premise to interpret Lumen Gentium 8 etc.

On the website of the CMRI there is a list of baptism of desire cases which are interpreted as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . But this is false. In reality the baptism of desire cases are always invsible for us human beings. But Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI continue with the error even after being informed.

We do not have to go only for the Latin Mass to be a traditionalist. Since Vatican Council II( rational) is in harmony with Tradition  even at the Novus Ordo Mass.

Are you saying Islam is not a path to salvation and you contradict PISAI, Rome ?

The Catholic Church in Vatican Council II intterpreted rationally is saying Isla, is not a path to salvation. It's membes do not have Catholic faith and the baptism of water ( AG 7, LG 14) needed for salvation from Hell.All need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). This is the rational, Feeneyite ( invisible people are invisible) interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The Pontifical Institute for Islamic and Arabic Studies, Rome is  irrational and Cushingite ( invisi le cases are physically visible in the present times).

You are asking the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and the Angelus Press of the SSPX to issue a clarification/ correction ?

The books on Vatican Council II and those related to Vatican Council II published by the SSPX's Angelus Press, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise ( invisible people are visible). They are Cushingite and not Feeneyite( invisible people are invisible). Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally.

The Superior General of the SSPX today, taught the irrational version of Vatican Council II when he was the Rector of the SSPX seminary in Argentina.

And the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ?

Don Armando Matteo is the Secretary for the Doctrinal Section for this Dicastery ( formery the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). He was scheduled to speak at the Basilica San Andrea della Fratte, Rome ( Nov 25). He interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the Minim Fathers and Sisters at this basilica. At this church Our Lady appeared to Alphonse Ratisbonne was then a missionary and Feeneyite on EENS, the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.

However the Holy Office (CSD/DDF) in its Letter to the Archbishop of Boston has been Cushingite and irrational.Cardinal Manuel Victor Fernandes z, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, also interprets Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms irrationally. This is not the doctrine of the Catholic faith.

The error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office is the theological basis for the New Evangelisation, New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Canon Law etc.Other religions are not paths to salvation ?

With the rational and Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II the Catholic Church is saying today, as in the  past, that other religions are not paths to salvation.So for the post-Vatican Council II Catholic Church Jews and Muslims are oriented to Hell without  'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7 etc).They need to enter the Catholic Church as members ( LG 16 etc) before they die for salvation from Hell.

The Catholic Church is saying today that in general Muslims are lost without the baptism of water and Catholic faith (AG 7). If anyone among them is in Heaven, he or she would be a Catholic.In Heaven there are only Catholics ( AG 7 LG 14, CCC 845,846, Mk.16:16, John 3:5 etc).They are there with Catholic faith and the baptism of water and without mortal sin on their soul.

Mohammad the Muslim prophet died without faith and the baptism of water according to the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. He is lost forever.Vatican Council II also says that those who know about Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church and yet do not enter (LG 14) are not saved from Hell.Mohammad knew and yet he founded a new religion. Dante saw him suffering in Inferno.

There are orthodox passages along side hypothetical passages throughout Vatican Council II.If the orthodox passages which support the past ecclesiology are marked in blue and the passages which refer to hypothetical cases ( baptism of desire, saved in invincible ignorance etc) are marked in red, then the red does not contradict the blue.

We can no more cite the red passages to suggest that Mohammad  was a known exception for the exclusive-salvation teaching of Ad Gentes 7. Ad Gentes 7 is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council ( 1215) and Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII. EENS today is like it was for the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.

This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church in Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) interpreted rationally i.e the red is not an exception for the blue.This has been the teaching of the popes and saints over the centuries, who affirmed the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS and interpreted invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire , as being invisible. This was common sense.

So BOD and I.I did not contradict the dogma EENS for St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Anthony Marie Claret, St.Maximillian Kolbe etc.

This has been the Biblical teaching  ( John 3:5, Mark 16:16) now corroborated by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholoic Church and all they old Catechisms interprete rationally.

Future popes, cardinals, bishops and priests have to be Feeneyite and not Cushingite ?

Yes. How can they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. Cushingism ( invisible people are visible) produces heresy. It is schisms with the Magisterium over the centuries. It is not Apostolic.

The popes, cardinals , bishops etc in future have to be honest and interpret the Council rationally. The people will expect this of them.

The pontifical universities must be accademically ethical.

 Pope Francis is in public mortal sin and not in communion with the Church and yet you accept him as the pope?

A pope, cardinal, bishop or any Catholic can be in public mortal sin. He can correct the error and receive absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Sanctifying Grace then returns. He is once again in communion with the Church. The scandal has ended.

In the Early Church, the Early Catholic Church, if someone was in public sin he was put outside and not allowed to participate in the liturgy. He had to do penance and be sorry for his sin and then he was allowed to come back in communion with the rest of the people, the rest of the Church.

With Cushingism, the irrational interpretation of Magisterial Documents ( Creeds,Councils, Catechisms etc), Pope Francis has changed the understanding of the Creeds etc. He is choosing to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. In this way there is a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So for Pope Francis not everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation, since there are exceptions. For me everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation since there are no visible and known exceptions in the present times  example, 1949-2023.

For him the Athanasius Creed says all need to be Catholic for salvation. For him, it is all, but with some known exceptions. This is irrational. Since we cannot know of any exception.

For me in the Nicene Creed we pray, “ I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” . This is only the baptism of water. It is repeatable and it can be delivered to a person.

Everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exceptions in 2023 for me. But for Pope Francis it is “ I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water”. There has to be baptisms without the baptism of water, which are known to him, in personal cases, otherwise he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS.

For me the Apostles Creed says ‘ I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church’ which teaches outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation, there is no salvation. This is not true for him. For him the New Theology from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston says outside the Church there is known salvation and so not everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.

To change the understanding of the Creeds  is first class heresy. But the pope , cannot be blamed, since all the cardinals are making the same error. Even the traditionalists are making the same error in general.

It is possible that Pope Francis will correct the error and then all will be normal.-Lionel Andrades

 

Pope Francis is in public mortal sin and not in communion with the Church and yet you accept him as the pope?

Pope Francis is in public mortal sin and not in communion with the Church and yet you accept him as the pope?

A pope, cardinal and bishop or any Catholic can be in public mortal sin. He can correct the error and receive absolution in the the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Sanctifying Grace then returns. He is once again in communion with the Church. The Scandal has ended.

In the Early Church, the Early Catholic Church, if someone was in public sin he was put outside and not allowed to participate in the liturgy. He had to do penance and be sorry for his sin and then he was allowed to come back in communion with the rest of the people, the rest of the Church.

With Cushingism, the irrational interpretation of Magisterial Documents ( Creeds,Councils, Catechisms etc), Pope Francis has changed the understanding of the Creeds etc. He is choosing to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. In this way there is a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So for Pope Francis not everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation, since there are exceptions. For me everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation since there are no visible and known exceptions in the present times  example, 1949-2023.

For him the Athanasius Creed says all need to be Catholic for salvation. For him, it is all, but with some known exceptions. This is irrational. Since we cannot know of any exception.

For me in the Nicene Creed we pray, “ I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” . This is only the baptism of water. It is repeatable and it can be delivered to a person.

Everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exceptions in 2023 for me. But for Pope Francis it is “ I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water”. There has to be baptisms without the baptism of water, which are known to him, in personal cases, otherwise he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS.

For me the Apostles Creed says ‘ I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church’ which teaches outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation, there is no salvation. This is not true for him. For him the New Theology from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston says outside the Church there is known salvation and so not everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.

To change the understanding of the Creeds  is first class heresy. But the pope , cannot be blamed, since all the cardinals are making the same error. Even the traditionalists are making the same error in general.

It is possible that Pope Francis will correct the error and then all will be normal.

- Lionel Andrades

 

 

 

                                            

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

Amoris Laetitia supports a mortal sin in morals and the 63 scholars like the two popes, support a mortal sin of faith

The 63 scholars say Pope Francis is supporting heresy but they do not state that he is a heretic and so is automatically excommunicated.They cannot.Since they themselves are in first class heresy on the salvation issue.

They all do not approve philosophical subjectivism in the interpretation of moral theology and Amoris Laeitita but they approve it in the interpretation of salvation theology for example, invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are judged as being visible cases.Then they infer that BOD, BOB and I.I are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They become examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So all of them accept invisible and unknown people as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS but they do not accept (correctly) Amoris Laeititia suggesting we can judge when a couple living in mortal sin is not a mortal sin (Veritatis Splendor) and when particular cases of the divorced and remarried people are not going to the fires of Hell and can even be given the Eucharist at Mass.

Why doesn't pope Francis just brush them off? Just tell them that he had to issue Amoris Laetitia due to pressure from the Jewish Left, the Masons and the secret societies of Satan and so was afraid of the Vatican and himself being personally attacked just like Chris Ferrara, Robert Matteo, Dr.John Rao and other signatories will not affirm Feeneyite EENS, to preserve their life and property, responsibilities and interests.

Both groups are following Satan and the Left.
The 63 scholars are not consistent in following the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.So they are able to keep their jobs and interests while they (correctly) correct Pope Francis on moral theology.Since it is safe with no one being immediately penalised in a big way. They are not willing to do the same thing on the issue of Fr. Leonard Feeney and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since then teh big crunch will be immediate.

Amoris Laetitia supports sacrilege but then so does the rejection of the 'infallible statement', the 'de fide dogma' which tells us that all Jews and Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox Christians in 2017 are on the way to Hell.
For Joseph Shaw to reject the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism(1994) with an irrational premise and then go to receive the Eucharist at the Tridentine Rite Mass is participating in a sacrilege.This is a mortal sin of faith.Amoris Laetitia supports a mortal sin in morals and the 63 signatories, like the two popes, support a mortal sin of faith.



None of the 63 scholars are going to sign a declaration saying they affirm EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century, since reason tells us invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I are not visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. They will not state that they believe every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member to avoid Hell.
None of them will say that Vatican Council II will not be a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.So there is no more the new ecumenism but only an ecumenism of return.

They will not issue a filial correction, telling the pope, that since hypothetical cases referred to in Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc) cannot be exceptions( and they never were) to Feeneyite EENS, the past ecclesiology fo the Church is still intact. So there should be mission knowing that all non Catholics with no known exceptions in 2017 are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.There are only Catholics in Heaven.
They could offer a filial correction to the bishops, in the USA, U.K and the rest of Europre who are cooperating in sacrilgeous Communion at Mass, with mortal sins of faith. 

They will not announce that there is no change in the pre and post Vatican Council II exclusivist ecclesiology.There is no change for the 63 scholars on faith, there is no change in doctrine since the new ecumenism, the new mission, the new theology, the new canon law is rejected with the old ecclesiology intact.

Instead the 63 scholars like Pope Francis support heresy and none of them will call each other heretics. Technically they all are automatically excommunicated but there is no one to enforce it.To change the meaning of the Nicene and Athanasius Creed is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths taught by Pope John Paul II.
-Lionel Andrades 

http://www.correctiofilialis.org/signatories/
 

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2016

For humans, including the popes, there cannot be known exceptions to the moral law

We simply have to respond to the popes saying :

1) We do not know any one in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional moral teaching i.e who is living in adultery, concubinage etc and will not go to Hell. Neither do the popes personally know of someone who is an exception.

2) No one in the past knew of any exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Everyone who is living in mortal sin is on the way to Hell.No one in the past saw someone in Heaven who was an exception to the moral law.

There are no physically visible cases of a couples living in adultery who will go to Heaven. There are no personally known cases of couples in adultery who will not go to Hell.The Bible says they will go to Hell and it is common knowledge that there cannot be any one personally known, who will not go to Hell, who is an exception.If there are no physically visible cases how can there be an exception to the traditional moral law ?

The new moral theology, of Pope Benedict XVI, which is part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) is based on physically knowing, explicitly seeing exceptions to '  Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1Cor 6:9,10).

Mortal sin is mortal sin since we cannot know of someone who will not go to Hell because of the  conditions of mortal sin in the Catechism (1995) Who knows of someone living in adultery who will not go to Hell since he did not have full knowledge or complete consent ? How can we know this?!

Which pope can say that a particular person living in concubinage will not go to Hell becuase there was 'unintentional ignorance '( CCC 1857-1860 Mortal Sin) ? None of us humans can know how God will judge a person.

Similarly all the 'exceptions' mentioned in Amoris Laeitiae are not exceptions. They can never be exceptions for us human beings.

The Amoris Laeitiae 'exceptions' are human speculation, papal speculation, on how God will supposedly ignore the Biblical teaching on sin. The speculation is assumed to be known in reality i.e due to some circumstance, someone who was living in adultery, did not go to Hell.They speculated on how Jesus would judge at the Paricular Judgement.

When it is inferred that the speculation refers to a know exception to traditional moral teachings, we have the new moral theology.

This is theology based on a false reasoning.

It is new theology based on a false premise ( hypothetical cases and known examples  of persons living in mortal sin who are in Heaven)  and conclusion ( in general the traditional, centuries old moral teaching does not exist de facto, in reality,since there are exceptions). 

This theology says hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to traditional mortal sin. It is based on this false reasoning, in magisterial documents after the Council of Trent, that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are changing Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, mortal sin, adultery, concubinage, divorce, the family, etc.With an irrationality they create a development of doctrine.

Ask the popes whom do they know  who is living in adultery and is not going to Hell?

 The Argentinian couple in a second marriage whom Pope Francis phoned will not go to Hell because of social factors? How would Pope Francis know? 1

 The popes cannot know of any exception to the moral and faith teachings unless they went to Heaven and returned to confirm it in 2016.Pope Francis can hope and speculate that the Argentinian couple will go to Heaven but he cannot know.

Yet in Amoris Laetitiae Pope Francis mentions exceptions to the moral law.While in the interview with Avvenire Pope Benedict says there are exceptions to the faith teachings on salvation.
He rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because of alleged exceptions. He also interpreted Vatican Council II, with LG 16 etc referring to not invisible  but explicit cases. So Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) has a hermenutic of discontinuity with Tradition and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).With exceptions there was a 'development' also for Pope Benedict.

1.We need to remind the popes that there are no known exceptions to the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church in 2016.

2.Also they must not assume that hypothetical cases, referred to in magisterial documents ( invincible ignorance etc) refer to known exceptions to the traditional teachings.For humans, including the popes, there cannot be known exceptions to the moral law.-Lionel Andrades

1
http://davidgibson.religionnews.com/2014/04/23/pope-francis-really-tell-divorced-woman-take-communion/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-sinner-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2612242/Pictured-The-divorced-woman-Pope-Francis-told-OK-communion-going-against-centuries-Catholic-teaching.html


This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there in Amoris Laetitia
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/this-error-is-all-over-vatican-councl.html

I want to read the Catechism of Trent.Too many factual mistakes in other catechisms and Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/i-want-to-read-catechism-of-trentto.html

  

 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2017

Cardinal Burke has made an in principle mistake in faith and morals since we cannot judge exceptions to the general rule on mortal sin and exclusive salvation

Pope Francis named Cardinal Raymond Burke on September 30 a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura 

Lionel:

Cardinal Raymond Burke does not have to refuse the nomination.

He needs to clarify that we cannot use Philosophical Subjectivism in the interpretation of faith and morals. We cannot change Catholic salvation and moral theology with the Obfuscation Principle.

The mistake he and Dr.Joseph Shaw are making is that they assume there are known cases of couples divorced and remarried who are living as brothers and sisters; who are living chaste.If there were - this would not be known to us. So they are not exceptions or relevant to the traditional moral teaching on mortal sin.

Neither can we know the conscience of any particular person in manifest mortal sin, to say that the person is an exception.

We cannot apply the three conditions of mortal sin to any one in manifest mortal sin and then state that the person is not in mortal sin. The three conditions can only be known to God.So mentioning them in the Catechism was part of the Obfuscation Principle.

He needs to pick up the issue from here i.e we cannot judge in general or particular cases when someone who objectively appears to be heading for Hell, is really not.There are not personally known exceptions to the norm on morals and faith(salvation).

If he repeats the message of the 63-plus scholars it would simply be brushed aside by Pope Francis, as he did recently in Columbia.1

He then needs to affirm the traditional teaching on faith and morals. He would have to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and continue to express himself clearly as he does (on abortion for example) when people in manifest mortal sin,are breaking the moral law with their life style.2

______________________________

Pope Francis has supported the Obfuscation Principle in the interpretation of Catholic morals and salvation. The confusion is there in his statement in Columbia on Amoris Laetitia being Thomistic.

The Obfuscation Principle is mixing up what cannot be known as being known, it is a false reasoning. It's subterfuge.It is philophical subterfuge used to change the traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church.

He rejects traditional exclusivist salvation in the Catholic Church by assuming unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc are known and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So they become examples of salvation outside the Church when there are no such cases in real life.There are no practical exceptions in 2017 to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Similarly he rejects the traditional teachings of Jesus on morals by assuming there are known exceptions.For him there are known cases of Catholics living in mortal sin who will not be going to Hell, or, after Amoris Laetitia, who can be given the Eucharist, for example, the divorced and remarried.

This is similar to cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborg in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) mention the three conditions of mortal sin which can only be known to God.So there is confusion on mortal sin.

In either case, faith(salvation) and morals, there are no known exceptions in the present times to the traditional teachings of the Church, since we simply cannot see people in Heaven.If there was an exception it would only be known to God.

However with the Obfuscation Principle, the two popes can pretend that in principle what is unknown is known, in principle what is physically invisible is visible, in principle what is only known to God in Heaven is also known in personal cases to us human beings on earth. This is philosophical cheating.

Outside the Church there is no salvation and all non Catholics in 2017 are oriented to Hell unless they are incorporated into the Church as members and similarly all divorced and remarried couples are living in mortal sin unless they change their life style and receive absolution in the Confessional.There is no confusion here.

There was confusion when the Church wrongly excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney who would not accept exceptions to the dogma EENS based on the Obfuscation Principle.Invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance could not be visible cases for him. The Church wrongly excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for not accepting Vatican Council II interpreted with the Obfuscation Principle and now in Columbia Pope Francis approved the excommunication of Professor José Galat, former rector of the La Gran Colombia University and founder and owner of the television station Teleamiga.There was a time when Cardinal Bergoglio also criticised the pope in public and no one called for his excommunication.

Pope Francis approves the Eucharist being given in general to the married and divorced in Germany, Malta, Italy and other countries.No one says he is in heresy and so is automatically excommunicated.

So there is now a new morality.Docrine has been changed by the two living popes by using an irrationality in faith and morals.If as Catholics we avoid this irrationality we can theologically return to the past ecclesiology, in faith(salvation) and morals.

As Catholics we have a moral obligation to avoid the Obfuscation Principle.-Lionel Andrades

1.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/pope-francis-su…
2.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/hugh-hefner-is-…

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2013

Rationality- the road less travelled.

When Pope Francis meets a non Catholic at the Vatican he can respect him but for the pope is that non Catholic saved, being saved or on the way to Hell?

Pope Francis is expected to take the irrational way, a teaching that is not part of the Catholic faith but influenced by Cushingism, which was part of his religious formation.There is another path which is rational, but was judged by his religious formators as being wrong, though traditional. We call it Feenyism.It says there are no visible exceptions to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on faith and morals. 

With Cushingism of course the pope will say 'who am I to judge ?' but he has judged that this person,before him, is not going to Hell.He has judged that there are known exceptions in 2013 to the Catholic Church's teachings on faith and morals. He filters Church doctrine and dogma through Cushingism which claims there are known exceptions, visible to us on earth.

We don't condemn. But of course we judge.We judge fornication,murder, atheism as being mortal sin.The Church tells us they are mortal sins. The Holy Spirit has judged.The Bible has judged.

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit tells us that the non Catholic whom Pope Francis meets is on the way to the fires of Hell.Vatican Council II says the same.The pope cannot personally judge that this Hindu, Buddhist or Jew is an exception to Church doctrine; to the teachings of the Holy Spirit and the Bible.He would not know. Cushingism  though claims we can know, we can judge exceptions.

Cushingism is irrational. It says there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, even when we don't know any such exception.

Can we judge who does not have a mortal sin on his soul or who will not have a mortal sin in future before he dies? The non Catholic whom Pope Francis meets, is on the way to the fires of Hell. I say this since the Catholic Church can judge.I judge based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. Magisterial texts teach this even though the head of the Magisterium, Pope Francis,may not say it, for whatever reason.

Can we judge that atheism is a mortal sin ' Yes. Since the Church says so.The atheist does not have Catholic Faith needed for salvation.

Can we judge that the homosexual is in mortal sin? Yes. Since the act and relationship is sinful.

Can we judge that suicide is sinful and the suicide victim should not be given a funeral? Yes since the Church says suicide is a mortal sin.lf there is an exception we would not know. In general suicide is a mortal sin. This is the norm for funerals.

An unmarried woman and man living together is a mortal sin?.Yes. We can judge. Concubinage in general is a mortal sin. It is a scandal.If there is an exception it would be known only to God. We cannot judge any exception.

Can we judge that immodesty in clothes is a mortal sin and that the immodestly dressed person should not be given the Eucharist at Holy Mass?  Yes. Immodesty has always been a mortal sin and this is one sin we can see before us and judge.In general immodesty is a mortal sin and if there is an exception it would be unknown to us, we could not judge subjectively.For us there are no exceptions. 

Jesus told the accusers of the woman in adultery, who was about to be stoned to death, not to judge. He meant do not  judge and condemn.Jesus judged that woman, when he said 'go and sin no more'.

The secularists, leftists, Communists and Masons judge that immodesty is not a sin. They judge homosexuality and abortion are not sins.They judge there is no sin.They judge there is no Hell.They judge and say that we cannot judge.

We Catholics judge that Hindus, Muslims,Jews, Communists and Masons are going to Hell but we don't condemn them.Condemnation is left for God.

Lionel Andrades

At the end of your first article, you also ask me what to say to our Jewish brothers about the promise God made to them: Has this been forgotten? And this - believe me - is a question that radically involves us as Christians because, with the help of God, starting from the Second Vatican Council, we have discovered that the Jewish people are still, for us, the holy root from which Jesus originated. I too, in the friendship I have cultivated in all of these long years with our Jewish brothers, in Argentina, many times while praying have asked God, especially when I remember the terrible experience of the Shoah. What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terribile trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we will never be grateful enough to them, as the Church, but also as humanity at large. Persevering in their faith in God and in the alliance, they remind everyone, even us as Christians that we are always awaiting, the return of the Lord and that therefore we must remain open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already achieved.

As for the three questions you asked me in the article of August 7th. It would seem to me that in the first two, what you are most interested in is understanding the Church's attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

-Pope Francis, from Letter to Dr.Scalfari,La Repubblica.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/09/amoris-laetitia-supports-mortal-sin-in.html