The Fischer-More College interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Latin Mass was not really the issue.Bishop Olsen was a Cushngite. Without the False Premise he would be a traditionalist

 

JANUARY 6, 2022

The Fischer-More College interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Latin Mass was not really the issue.Bishop Olsen was a Cushngite. Without the False Premise he would be a traditionalist

 

JUNE 16, 2017

When we have a Catholic college which is Feeneyite, then we will have a truly Catholic college.It will have a Catholic identity

CATHOLIC COLLEGE NEEDS FEENEYITE PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY

For Deacon Edward Schaefer's traditional college to be Catholic its philosophy and theology would have to be Feeneyite and not Cushingite.They may not get accreditation but then they would still be affirming the old ecclesiology without rejecting Vatican Council II.

With Cushingism you have known salvation outside the Church and so there is the new ecumenism.

With Feeneyism you do not have known salvaton outside the Church so there is no salvation outside the Church. Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to convert.

With Cushingism entering the Church is no more a priority so there can be a separation of Church and State and proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King is no more necessary for saving souls.

With Feeneyism there is no salvation outside the Church and so saving souls is a priority.The non separation of Church and State and proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King is important.

This concept of known salvation comes to us from Rahner and Ratzinger and it has to be discarded by the traditionalists.

The concept of invisible baptism of desire being visible has to be rejected.There obviously are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS in the past or present times.No one in the past saw a baptism of desire case in Heaven.

Once this is understood Vatican Council II is no more a problem and we are back to the old ecclesiology, the Tridentine Rite Mass ecclesiology.

So for now there is no real Catholic college.Instead there are modernist institutions which claim they are Catholic.1

BISHOP OLSEN WAS A CUSHINGITE. WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE  HE WOULD BE A TRADITIONALIST

The Fischer More College 2 interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.There had to be a rupture with Tradition. They wrongly traced the problem to Vatican Council II.Not aware of the difference between Vatican Council II Cushingism and Feeneyism. Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with Tradition but they did know this.
Update: March 4, 2014, 12:32 AM CST
 Pat Archbold reports that Fr. Nicholas Gruner, the leader of the International Fatima Rosary Crusade (Catholic World News says "self-styled", but I see no reason to call that item into question), spoke at FMC(Fischer More College), but reportedly did not act as a priest. The information was obtained through the Fisher More website, where they've listed their guest speakers since 2012.3

Father Nicholas Gruner rejected Vatican Council II (Cushingite) while Bishop Olson and the USCCB affirm it.
Vatican Council II(Cushingite) was an issue at Fischer More College and this can be avoided at the Collegium.

Update: Same day, 10:05 AM CST
Doctor Taylor Marshall, former chancellor at Fisher More College and TLM devoté, released his statement on the controversy through his Facebook page. At risk of making an outrageously long post longer, here are some salient quotations [bold type my emphases]:

I resigned when moral, theological, and financial discrepancies came to light regarding the presidency of Michael King. I was an ex officio member of the Board so I knew what others did not. From May to early June of 2013, five of the eight College Board Members also resigned for two reasons:

1) Mr. King refused to disassociate himself from the public statements of faculty member Dr. Dudley that claimed in his Year of Faith lecture that Catholic professors have the duty to teach young people that Vatican 2 is not a valid Council (he also endorsed other “resistance” positions regarding the Novus Ordo, John Paul II, etc.) 4

 Dr. Dudley did not differentiate between Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Cushingite and knew only one intepretation.

Taylor Marshall and his wife were also Cushingites.

FMC hosted a public repudiation of Vatican 2 and the Ordinary Form of the Mass in April of 2013 that was so offensive that my wife and I walked out of it before it’s conclusion. That did not do much to heal the breach with the local diocese or presbyterate and it contributed to the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) discontinuing their support and presence at FMC. The current FMC website advertises that the FSSP provides a chaplain, but this is not true.5

Doctor Marshall also points out that Summorum Pontificum doesn't apply because a layman, not a priest, is requesting the permission, and that "Bishop Olson supports the FSSP in his diocese and has nothing against the Extraordinary Form."6

FSSP STILL NOT ALLOWED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FEENEYISM

The FSSP still cannot  interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and then offer the Latin Mass.No priest in Rome can issue a statement saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He will get a warning from the Rome Vicariate.Permission is granted to offer the Latin Mass only with the new theology, Cushingite theology.Feeneyism is prohibited. They all know this. So Catholics have a new identity approved by the magisterium and the Left.

FAITHFUL TO THE NON TRADITIONAL MAGISTERIUM
Now Deacon Edward Schaefer's  is expected to make the same mistake at the Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum in  2019,when he will be faithful to  'the magisterium',like the FSSP priests.He will then get an accreditation for the college and also be approved by the diocese.
The students will have to accept Vatican Council II Cushingite which will be a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.But it will be magisterial and in continuity with the liberals at the Vatican. It will not in continuity with Tradition and the Mass of All Ages.
They will have to accept EENS ( Cushingite) which Pope Benedict XVI affirmed in March 2016.They will have to proclaim Vatican Council II as a development of the dogma EENS, as Pope Benedict clarified heretically.

POPE FRANCIS WILL APPROVE THE IDEOLOGY OF THE COLLEGIUM
So like the FSSP they will offer the Latin Mass at the Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum with the new ecclesiology.They welcome Vatican Council II and EENS Cushingite and then claim that this is the old theology of the Latin Mass. Pope Francis will approve this 'ideology'.
They will be in line with the  Pontifical  Gregorian University in Rome .There they interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism and it is supported by the two living popes. 

The Jesuits at the Gregorian have the same theology as Bishop Donald Sanborn's sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity seminary in Florida. Bishop Sanborn  interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and then rejects the conclusion while the Jesuits accept the heretical conclusion.Both infer invisible people are visible. 
Both Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS can be interpreted with Feeneyism and it will not be a rupture with Catholicism as it was known and taught in the 16th century and his makes a college Catholic and traditional.

The Fischer More College, Most Holy Trinity seminary, the Gregorian University  and the future Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum in Florida are not Catholic since they are not Feeneyite.
Instead they all follow the magisterium which is Cushingite. This is a theology which is irrational and heretical.

When we have a Catholic college which is Feeneyite, then we will have a truly Catholic college. There will be unity and harmony in Church doctrine even if the college is refused accreditation.The students will interpret all magisterial documents without using an irrational premise and the whole world will come down upon them as being 'haters', 'rigid'... and will demand that the institution be closed down.But they will be a Catholic college.There will be mission based on sound traditional doctrine.They will have a Catholic identity.-Lionel Andrades

1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/all-board-members-of-collegium.html

2.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/0795b5dcc10f96c16d54412d9817d6c0-194.html
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/fisher-more-college-awaiting-answer.html

3.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU

4.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU


5.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU


6.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU

________________________________________________________

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   

________________________________________________