DECEMBER 5, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (Updated 05.12.2023 )
OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION
John 3:5,Mk.16:16
VATICAN COUNCIL II (AG 7,LG 14)
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ( 845, 846,1257
ETC). This is a DOGMA of the Church ( Fourth Lateran Council 1215, Council of
Florence 1442). In Heaven there are
only Catholics ( AG 7, CCC 846 etc)
CONTACT : Lionel Andrades. Blog:
eucharistandmission
1.
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.
2.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.
3.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.
4.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.
5.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.
6.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.
7.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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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.
16.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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19.Why do Bishop Athanasius
Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall still interpret Vatican Council II irrationally
and politically ?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall say there are no
explicit cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) but they will not say that
there are also no literal cases of LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 and so Vatican
Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
When
interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said that there
are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. Marshall agreed and said that
there are no explicit cases of St.Thomas Aquinas' implicit baptism of
desire.
Here Bishop Schneider and Taylor Marshall use the rational premise (invisible
cases are invisible) to interpret the baptism of desire. Yet does not interpret
LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, with the Rational Premise.
He does not say that these invisible and hypothetical cases in the Council-text
do not contradict the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and traditional
ecclesiocentrism. He is politically correct with the Left and so does not
affirm Feeneyite EENS. He does not affirm EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215) which did not mention any exceptions. If he said that Vatican Council II
is not a rupture with EENS and the rest of Tradition then he would make the New
Theology, which says outside the Church there is known salvation- obsolete.
The New Theology was used by the popes and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to
wrongly interpret Vatican Council II. The premise (invisible cases are visible
in the present times, LG 14, 15, 16 etc refer to visible non Catholics saved
outside the Church) was false.
For political reasons in subsequent interviews he interpreted Vatican
Council II as a break with Tradition. He did not correct the German Synods.
They are still interpreting Vatican Council II with the fake premise. He did
not defend Brother Andre Marie micm, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA. Archbishop Augustine di
Noia is still forcing them to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (847,848
on invincible ignorance (LG 16) irrationally).Schneider and Taylor are not
asking the SSPX and the USCCB to interpret the Council as a continuation with
the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
When they continue to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with
Tradition (and criticize this) it is approved by the Vatican and the political
Left. - Lionel Andrades
JANUARY 2, 2022
Pope Francis can create unity on doctrine and theology by interpreting Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise.
Francis cited worries that some groups celebrating the older Mass were rejecting the council itself, which brought about a number of reforms in the church. -Joshua McElwee, National Catholic Reporter
Lionel: All good Catholics, even those who go for the Novus Ordo Mass or the Mass in other rites, must reject Vatican Council II interpreted with a False Premise and accept Vatican Council II interrpreted with a Rational Premise.
Catholics are not obliged to interpret the Council with a Fake Premise and produce a fake break with Tradition and then call it the 'development of doctrine' or 'the reforms of Vatican Counciol II II'.Pope Francis can create unity on doctrine and theology by interpreting Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise.
He would have to reject the present political interpretation of the Council which produces liberalism in the Church..-Lionel Andrades
https://www.ncronline.org/news/quick-reads/popes-latin-mass-decision-hasnt-affected-his-popularity-survey-finds
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
OCTOBER 23, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and ecclesiocentric
JUNE 11, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II.
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It 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.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -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
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
OCTOBER 21, 2021
I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS
I affirm Church Teachings and Documents. Vatican Council II is an ally
I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS
When Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise the Council is an ally. We can affirm Tradition along with Vatican Council II.
I affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.
I AVOID THE CONFUSION
Today's Christocentric missionaries will interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 29Q ( invincible ignorance) as being a practical exception to 24Q and 27Q ( outside the Church no salvation) in the same Catechism. They are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.
For Feeneyites 29 Q ( invincible ignorance) is only a hypothetical case. So LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation).
Also the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict the same Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846 ( AG 7 - all need faith and baptism for salvation.)
Cardinal Tagle's Cushingite missionaries, will also welcome other Christians, Protestans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, even if they officially believe contraception and abortion are not mortal sins. The false New Evangelisation, presents Jesus in a new Church, without the necessity of the traditional faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church of St. Ignatius of Loyola.
With the Rational Premise, Pope Francis and Cardinal Tagle could affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics ( Quas Primas ). Since the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents, would have returned to ecclesiocentrism. There would no more be a rupture with the Principle of Non Contradiction ( baptism of desire cases are visible in Heaven and on earth at the same time and so they are practical exceptions to EENS), of Aristotle.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021. They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also irrational and non Magisterial.
CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
ATHANASIUS CREED
Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.I do not know of any practical exception in the present times.
DOGMA EENS
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since they can only be hypothetical, always.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism.
Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.
NICENE CREED
In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible. I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
FOUR MARKS OF THE CHURCH
So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational premise.
APOSTLES CREED
In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS DOGMATIC
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8, LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.
For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in 1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC
Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The footnotes of Dignitatis Reditigratio, Vatican Council II refer to the Church in a secular state.With Vatican Council II ecclesiocentric and dogmatic, the Council would be an ally for a Catholic Government in a Catholic State. It would be important for the pope to be a Catholic to save their soul, since Vatican Council II is also saying outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation( Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).The Catholic Government may choose to grant religious liberty to non Catholics as during the time of the Papal States in Europe. The roots of Europe are Catholic and not Christian, unless it refers to the Catholic Church.
COLLEGIALITY, SYNODALITY
Collegiality and Synodality are not an issue when Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since in a Synod all wold have to interpret the Council with the Rational Premise and the so support the past ecclesiocentrism of the Syllabus of Errors, EENS, Catechisms of Trent and Pius X etc.
TRADITIONAL MISSION
Since Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric we are back to Traditional Mission according to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Every one with no known exception needs to enter the Catholic Church, with no mortal sin at the time of death, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
The New Evangelisation of Pope Benedict rejects ecclesiocentrism when it interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise. So the Church becomes Christocentric without remaining Ecclesiocentric as in the past.
It is only with ecclesiocentrism that there is a return to Traditional Mission. To save souls from going to Hell it is necessary to have a Catholic Government in a Catholic State like Italy.The present secular, liberal or Communist states are Satanic.They are supported by Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise which says outside the Church there is known salvation.So every one does not have to be Catholic to go to Heaven is the new teaching of George Soros and the Rotschild family.They present a Council which presents exceptions for EENS.
So there is no real evangelization in Europe.Since in Europe people know about Jesus but they are not being told by the Church that it is necessary to believe in Jesus, while being a member of the Catholic Church, with Catholic faith and the baptism of water, for salvation ( to avoid Hell ).
Now with radio and television even people in the poor countries of Asia and Africa know about Jesus but they do know tht he is the unique and only Saviour, who saves people from Hell in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church according to the Bible is His Mystical Body.
SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING
The Catholic Identity Conference held recently mentions the Social Reign of Christ the King while interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise this is contradictory.It also mentions George Soros when the interpretation of the Council by the Lefebvrists is approved by George Soros and the Rothschilds.
Catholics are not told that outside the Church there is no salvation and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.So Catholics should vote for a Political Party which supports the Social Reign of Christ the King in politics.Christ must be the center of all politics. Christ must not restricted to the liturgy.
When Vatican Council II supports the dogma EENS which says outside the Church there is no salvation then Catholics have an obligation to support a Catholic political party or candidate, who interprets the Council rationally.
Traditional Mission in the Church can only return when the Lefebvrists, Thucs and others interpret Magisterial Documents with the Rational Premise and avoid the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This irrationality is accepted by both the present two popes . So we have a political Left interpretation of the Council. There are two interpretations, one with the False Premise above and the other with the Rational Premise, which avoids the mistake above.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire be objective exceptions to the practical teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
This irrationality is accepted by both the present two popes . So we have a political Left interpretation of the Council. There are two interpretations, one with the False Premise above and the other with the Rational Premise, which avoids the mistake above.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire be objective exceptions to the practical teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
TRADITIONIS CUSTODE AND VATICAN COUNCIL II.
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path of the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who excercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Pietro et sub Pietro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself, who guides the Church.-Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies, Traditionis Custode.
Pope Francis calls Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit.
How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14 ( baptism of desire) and LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) for example ?
For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021.This is something obvious.
How can LG 14, LG 16, etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how Pope Francis and the Masons interpret Vatican Council II.It is different from rational way. I interpret the Council. I consider the interpretations of Vatican Council II with the rational premise as being Magisterial.It is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.
With Traditional Mission and ecclesiocentrism the Catholic political parties can proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and the non separation of Church and State, as a priority to save souls from Hell.
These are the teachings and documents of the Catholic Church which I affirm. -Lionel Andrades
__________________
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/i-affirm-church-teachings.html
Posts
