DECEMBER 31, 2023
Now we have two new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years.
Now we have two new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years. This changes Vatican Council II which now has a continuity with Tradition, especially with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
I
IF WE CHOOSE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AND OTHER MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AS NOT HAVING EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION.
It is said why have Traditional Mission, why should non-Catholics convert into the Catholic Church, when there is salvation outside the Church i.e. known salvation in particular cases in the present times.
So LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are projected as ‘known people’ physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949-2023. They are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)
But LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA, 2 GS 22 etc are always physically invisible cases in 1949-2023.They are always only hypothetical cases. They exist only in our mind. They are theoretical. They are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So in 2023-2024 outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake and that mistake is repeated in Vatican Council II. It is also repeated in the Creeds when the baptism of desire is mentioned. It is repeated in the interpretation of the old Church Councils and the Catechisms when the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned. We interpret these Magisterial Documents, with or without exceptions. So there are two different conclusions. If we choose to interpret them with exceptions then there is a break with Tradition (EENS etc). There is a development of doctrine and unlimited liberalism. If we choose to interpret these Magisterial Documents without exceptions, there is the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition (Athanasius Creed, EENS, and Syllabus of Errors etc).
II
THE BLUE PASSAGES HAVE A HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION AND THE RED PASSAGES ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS.
LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc can now be referred to as the hypothetical cases or the red passages. They are not objective exceptions for the orthodox (blue) passages in Vatican Council II. The red passages refer to physically invisible cases in the present times (1949 to 1965 or 2023 -2024).
The orthodox (blue) passages are usually accompanied by the hypothetical (red) passages in Vatican Council II.
In principle, the concept of the red passages in Vatican Council II emerges from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. The 1949 LOHO confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council ( 1215), which did not mention any exceptions.
So when the Council Fathers ( 1965) inserted LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA ,2 GS 22 etc, in the text of Vatican Council II, they were inserting 'invisible cases', which did not really contradict EENS ( with no exceptions). There could only be invisible cases. They really had no choice. But they interpreted these invisible cases as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church. This was their error.
The popes from Paul VI interpreted the red hypothetical passages as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. In other words, they were not hypothetical and invisible only. How could they be invisible for them ? Since only physically visible cases can be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. They needed exceptions. They did not want to support Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they created their artifical exceptions. Theyimplied that what was invisible was visible and then they concluded that there were practical exceptions for EENS, mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So they made a mistake. They interpreted 'the red passages' incorrectly. So for them, Vatican Council II made the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism, obsolete. This was how Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reasoned-wrongly.
This was how Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio reasoned wrongly on a Church Militant TV program. For them, Ad Gentes 7 contradicted itself since they interpreted 'the red passages' as being exceptions for the blue orthodox passages, which support EENS, in Ad Gentes 7.
So now, when we read Vatican Council II, we must note carefully that the red passages do not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the rest of Tradition. They are not exceptions for Traditional Mission.
So 'the blue passages' have a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and the 'the red passages ' are not exceptions.
CONCLUSION:
We can have Traditional Mission based upon there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, since Vatican Council II does not have any exceptions. Everyone needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, with no known exceptions, mentioned in the Council-text.
A Catholic State is necessary, to save souls, since the Council is saying outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).We need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).
Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Magisterium over the centuries, including the missionaries in the 16th century.
-Lionel Andrades
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2023
Who gives Pope Francis the right to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally? How can a pope choose to interpret the Council unethically? How can a dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II be Magisterial? Pope Francis must choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally i.e. invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always invisible in 2023-2024.
Who gives Pope Francis the right to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally? How can a pope choose to interpret the Council unethically? How can a dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II be Magisterial? Pope Francis must choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally i.e. invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always invisible in 2023-2024.
He must not project LG 8,14,15,16,UR3,NA2, GS 22 etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional ecclesiocentism of the Catholic Church.
A pope cannot choose to interpret LG 8, 14, 15 etc as being a non-hypothetical and objective cases, when they always are hypothetical and physically invisible in the present times.
Lay people must know that an invisible case of LG 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) does not make the dogma EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), obsolete. Someone who is not there, an invisible person cannot be an exception for the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic Faith for salvation. Someone who is not there cannot be an exception.
Why does Pope Francis not affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X and that of Trent, which are not contradicted by the speculative and invisible cases, referred to in LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc?
Who gives Pope Francis the right to project LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc as being exceptions for the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal? There are no exceptions in our human reality.
How can there be a pope who is not ‘normal’ on Vatican Council II? So now there are two versions of Vatican Council II, two versions of the Nicene Creed (invisible and visible baptism of desire etc), two versions of the Athanasius Creed (with and without exceptions) and two versions of the Catechisms.
The confusion in Vatican Council II comes from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were assumed to be visible exceptions for traditional EENS. So the past ecclesiocentrism was made obsolete with this ruse. It was said that since there was known salvation outside the Catholic Church in the present time, why have Traditional Mission ? Why do people need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation when there were known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1949-1965 and later ? Why must there be a Catholic State when non Catholics are being saved outside the Church and they are known in particular cases ?
Now we need to ask : Why should Catholics accept the 1949 LOHO which was referenced by the liberals in Vatican Council II (LG 16) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and placed in the Denzinger ? The objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO does not make it Magisterial and so it should not have been inserted in the Denzinger.
Cardinals, bishops, priests and religious communities can today choose to interpret all Magisterial Documents (Creed, Councils and Catechisms) rationally-only!
-Lionel Andrades
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2023
The videos of Brother Michael Dimond of the MHFM are heretical when he interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and produces a fake break with Tradition
I wanted to give our supporters an update on our apostolate and some of our plans for the near future…
Lionel: Michael Dimond and the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. They choose to interpret the 'red passages' like Pope Francis.
________________
Over the past 30 years (among all “conservative Catholic” organizations in the world), we are probably in the top six in terms of the total amount of Catholic materials distributed…
Lionel: The interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents of the MHFM is the same as that of the liberals. So the still have a tax exempt status.
____________________
We also have the largest sedevacantist outreach in history by far, and our material has (by God’s grace) convinced the most people of the true position concerning the current state of the Church.
Lionel: The sedevacantists are politically correct with the Left on Vatican Council II. They interpret the red passages irrationally and produce a break with Tradition and then put the blame on the Council.
We have YouTube channels in 10 different languages with over 354,000 subscribers and over 106 million video views. Over 14.9 million people have visited our English website since 2012.
…Working on these new video projects takes up a considerable amount of our time. The fact is that our videos, websites, and materials are the most important information available to help people see the truth and save their souls.
Lionel: Their videos are heretical when they choose to interpret the Council with Cushingism and not Feeneyism. Vatican Council II becomes a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Sincerely in Jesus Christ,
Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B.
Superior, Most Holy Family Monastery
An important letter on our apostolate and some of our plans for the near future
https://vaticancatholic.com/mhfm-apostolate-update-2023/
For me the Council has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. For the main line Catholic Church Vatican Council II can only be in harmony with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. There is no other rational choice.
When I say that the Catholic Church teaches today that outside the Church there is no salvation I am citing Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am affirming the blue orthodox passages which are in harmony with the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I am affirming the red hypothetical passages which do not contradict the blue passages and neither the Council of Florence on EENS.
This is rational, traditional and magisterial.
So Vatican Council II is still officially saying in its text that outside the Church there is no salvation. This is the main line Catholic Church which uses Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Why should I interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms irrationally and dishonestly like the popes, cardinals and bishops?
For me the Council has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. For the main line Catholic Church Vatican Council II can only be in harmony with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. There is no other rational choice.
So my approach is to first 1) affirm the blue passages which are in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology and then 2) affirm the red hypothetical passages, which do not contradict the blue passages and neither Tradition.- Lionel Andrades
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2023
Archbishop Guido Pozzo at Ecclesia Dei and Pope Benedict would say that Vatican Council II had the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and they would also say that it had the development of doctrine, or hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. They would speak in two ways.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo at Ecclesia Dei and Pope Benedict would say that Vatican Council II had the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and they would also say that it had the development of doctrine, or hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. They would speak in two ways.
Of course the blue orthodox passages in Vatican Council II could be cited to say that the Council had a continuity with Tradition. This was useful when they were talking to the traditionalists.
But when they wanted to please the Left and the liberals they could interpret the red passages irrationally and so Vatican Council II would have a rupture with the blue orthodox passages –and also Tradition in general, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus EENS, etc.
Pope Benedict clarified once, that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century. There was a development of doctrine he said, with Vatican Council II. He meant the Council was a break with Tradition, when he would interpret invisible cases of LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.
Of course, he was repeating the error of Pope Pius XII in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.
Now in 2023 we can choose to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally and so in harmony with Tradition. We can always choose the hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X. We do not have to interpret the Council like Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops.
The recent document on homosexual, like Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode, is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. The red passages are knowingly interpreted irrationally. This cannot be Magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake. Lionel Andrades
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus of Pope John Paul II were issued with the irrational interpretation of the red passages in Vatican Council II. The public error is there for all to see.
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus of Pope John Paul II were issued with the irrational interpretation of the red passages in Vatican Council II. The public error is there for all to see.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, interpreted the invisible and hypothetical cases in the red passages as being objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed and the past exclusivist ecclesiology. So he assumed that invisible cases were physically visible. Only visible cases, objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church, can be exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.If someone does not exist in our reality, he cannot be an exception for the past ecclesiocentrism.He does not contradict the dogma EENS.
For example, if there is an apple in a box of oranges then then apple is an exception since it is different but also becuase it is there in that box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception.
Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, as being exceptions for the dogma EENS. So he implied that these were non-hypothetical, objective cases, known in the present times.
This is irrational but with this reasoning he created exceptions for Tradition and then issued Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc.
When what is invisible is seen as being visible I call it Cushingism.
When what is invisible is seen as being invisible only, I call it Feeneyism.
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus are Cushingite. The Athanasius Creed, for example. which says all need Catholic faith for salvation, is Feeneyite, for me. I interpret it without exceptions. Probably a Cushingite could interpreted it differently, with exceptions.
Similarly Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me. I interpret it without it having exceptions for the dogma EENS etc.In general Vatican Council II is Cushingite, for just about everyone.
Cushingism is liberalism.Pope Paul VI brought this liberalism into the Church by interpreting the red hypothetical passages irrationally. He confused what is invisible as being visible and no one corrected him. Then it was claimed that Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition, it was a revolution in the Church, it was a new revelation, when all they were really doing was mixing up what is invisible as being visible and so producing a non traditional conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 11, 2014
Two Catholic Conferences this week end: how would they interpret Redemptoris Missio?
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2014
What a mess !
1949:
Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
___________________________________________________
FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Charles Morerod in a doctrinal error says the SSPX cannot use Catholic Churches because of a doctrinal issue
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/sspx-get-smart.html
FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2014
Most Catholic priests are using the irrational, right-hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Bernard Fellay have used the irrational column http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-and-bishop.html#links
Roman Forum Summer Conference this month will use the right hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/roman-forum-summer-conference-this.html#links
There are Catholic religious and lay persons who use the the left hand side column in the interpretation of magisterial text http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/there-are-catholic-religious-and-lay.html#links
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit or explicit for us.
hypothetical or known in reality.
invisible or visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).
subjective or objective
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Bernard Fellay have used the irrational column
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit or explicit for us.
hypothetical or known in reality.
invisible or visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).
subjective or objective
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
3
SUNDAY, JUNE 15, 2014
SSPX considers Nostra Aetate an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of Pope Pius X-this is heresy and irrationality
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
No comments:
Post a Comment