The United States State Department must clarify that LG
8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical
cases only. They are not physically visible cases in 1965-2024 for President
Biden.
-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 13, 2024
Pope Francis and Joe Biden are interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly
JANUARY 16, 2024
I have been saying outside the Church there is no salvation (CCC 845,846 etc) and LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II and my allies are Michael Sean Winters ( National Catholic Reporter), Massimo Faggioli ( Commonweal), John Allen jr ( Cruz), Nicole Winfield ( Associated Press), Edward Pentin ( National Catholic Register) and many others. They agree with me.
I have been saying outside the Church there is no salvation (CCC 845,846 etc) and LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II and my allies are Michael Sean Winters ( National Catholic Reporter), Massimo Faggioli ( Commonweal), John Allen jr ( Cruz), Nicole Winfield ( Associated Press), Edward Pentin ( National Catholic Register) and many others. They agree with me.Politically they may not like the conclusion when they interpret Vatican Council II rationally like me. But there is no other choice when the Council is interpreted honestly. They have all been reporting the Council as a break with Tradition and now that has to change.The Council has a continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism. This is what they imply. They are telling us 1) that there are no practical exceptions in Vatican Council II for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, while 2) Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 support the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II with its orthodox passages support Tradition and the hypothetical references in LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, do not contradict Tradition ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc).
Vatican Council II has a coherence within itself when they interpret invisible cases as being just invisible.
If the hypothetical cases are marked in red and the orthodox in blue then the red does not contradict the blue. This is Magisterial. The conclusion is in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries. It is not magisterial when they are irrational and unethical.
Now an informed Cardinal Fernandez and the journalists in Rome know that the red does not contradict the blue. They agree with me.
They can no more be liberals on Vatican Council II since the hypothetical cases are always physically invisible for them. They cannot be practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is being honest on Vatican Council II .
LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc must only be interpreted rationally i.e they are hypothetical cases which are not physically visible in 2024.
So there is no break with the past ecclesiocentrism for Cardinal Fernandez and the journalists here.
The rational interpretation (invisible cases are always only invisible) is ethical and this is the choice of the cardinal and the journalists.
-Lionel Andrades
_________________________________
DECEMBER 7, 2023
I have e-mailed Alberto Melloni and his colleagues at the FSCIRE about their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and there is no denial from them. They actually agree with me : Is it legal when Melloni receives, reportedly, over a million euros annually, and intentionally interprets LG 8,1,4,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 irrationally and dishonestly ?
DECEMBER 8, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (Updated 08.12.2023 ) /21. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and the Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire have made a public error in the case of the St.Benedict Center ?
NOVEMBER 19, 2023
You can interpret Vatican Council II according to Pope Paul VI or Lionel Andrades. Vatican Council II can be Cushingite or Feeneyite, with the irrational premise (invisible non-Catholics are physically visible) or rational premise (invisible cases are invisible only). So the conclusion is different. The Council is non traditional or traditional. It depends upon the premise, inference and conclusion, chosen.
JANUARY 4, 2024
I am waiting for Pope Francis and the cardinals to announce that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, refer to physically invisible and not visible cases in 2024.With this one statement the Church returns to Tradition and is in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries, including that of the missionaries in the 16th century.
I am affirming the teachings of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation and the Catechism says outside the Church there is no salvation. The Church is saying that all Muslims, Jews and other non Christians need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell).This has been the consistent teaching of the Church now supported by the Council and Catechism. It has been a dogma of the Church- extra ecclesiam nulla salus – defined by three Church Councils (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 etc).
I respect the dignity of the other person and their right to follow their religion in a secular non Catholic State. I also expect others to respect my religious beliefs.
Instead I find myself discriminated against in Rome because of my Catholic beliefs.
I appreciate the good things in other religions (NA 2) and the elements of sanctification and truth in other religions (LG 8), but the Church also teaches that other religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7, CCC 845,846, CDF Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj, 2001 etc). The Holy Spirit can act outside the visible boundaries of the Church but salvation is restricted to the Catholic Church ( AG 7, LG 14 etc).
As a Catholic, I believe, for example, that Islam is not a path to salvation and their members are oriented to the Catholic Church for salvation (CDF, Dupuis, 2001 etc). I have not criticized any religious leader or religion directly.
LG 8,14,15,16,UR3,NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2024 and so they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither do they contradict Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845( the Church is like the Ark of Noah that saves in the flood),846( outside the Church there is no salvation).
The norm for salvation is ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7) and not the baptism of desire( BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16).The ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism( Ad Gentes 7) and there is no extraordinary means of salvation known to us in real life. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the BOD or I.I or where the Catholic Church subsists outside the Church’s visible boundaries (LG 8). We cannot see or meet someone saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) or saved with good will (GS 22) etc.
Yet because of my Catholic beliefs there are people who believe I should be deprived of some right, guaranteed by the Italian Constitution. Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are Magisterial for me, but for them, these Documents are ‘terrorist’.I have a right to follow these Church Documents and the Bible (John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc).
My Parish Priest, Fr. Paolo Bomus, of the church Sant Agapito, the priests of the Missionaries of Charity of Mother Teresa, Rome and the Ecclesia Mater theologians for the Auxiliary Bishops of Rome, also follow the Council and Catechism. For them too, LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to physically invisible and not physically visible cases in 1965-2024.
So my Catholic beliefs are not just personal beliefs but they are the official and Magisterial teachings of the Church, Councils and Catechisms, interpreted rationally. I am only following the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I am waiting for Pope Francis and the cardinals to announce that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, refer to physically invisible and not visible cases in 2024.With this one statement the Church returns to Tradition and is in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries, including that of the missionaries in the 16th century.
When the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican recognizes that LG 8,14,15,16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only, always, Catholics can affirm Vatican Council II (rational) and Tradition. They will not have to choose between the two. Since Vatican Council II with LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being hypothetical and physically invisible, does not support the familiar liberalism. There is no more conflict on doctrine and division among traditionalists and liberals. We have unity on doctrine once again. There is no more a development of doctrine and instead there is the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. The ecclesiology of the old Roman Missal will be the norm at the Novus Ordo Mass and all liturgies and rites.
-Lionel Andrades
__________________
DECEMBER 22, 2021
The bottom line is that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical, always, 24 hours. Whatever is your opinion about Fr. Leonard Feeney LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical. So Traditionis Custode cannot say that LG 8 etc are objective cases in 2021 and that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. LG 8, LG 16 etc being implicit always, is not a rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past Magisterium.
The bottom line is that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical, always, 24 hours. Whatever is your opinion about Fr. Leonard Feeney LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical. So Traditionis Custode cannot say that LG 8 etc are objective cases in 2021 and that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. LG 8, LG 16 etc being implicit always, is not a rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past Magisterium.
If you are conditioned to think that the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance (LG 16) are exceptions for Feeneyite EENS then the Council Fathers will become a puzzle for you. If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not objective cases and so are not exceptions for EENS, Everything falls in place. All is clear. The Council is not a break with Tradition.
The Council Fathers made a mistake in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. Since in principle LG 8 etc. can only be hypothetical cases and so do not contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
The popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), made a mistake. They confused unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known exceptions, for 16th century EENS, which had no exceptions. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake and it was made official when it was placed in the Denzinger and referenced at Vatican Council II (LG 16).It says outside the Church there is known salvation in the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so it is not always necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
This is the New Theology of Vatican Council II and so LG 8 etc. are cited by the Council Fathers. This New Theology confused what is invisible as being visible and then infers that there are practical exceptions for EENS. So the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc. are made obsolete.
Once this is clear we can go through Vatican Council II smoothly. There are no passages which contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX or traditional ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue. The Council is no more for an against Tradition. It is only for Tradition. It is dogmatic on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (AG 7). LG 8, etc., are not exceptions for AG 7. They are not exceptions for EENS or the Athanasius Creed. So there is no more an objective error (confusing what is invisible as being visible) and there is no more a break with the past Magisterium (EENS, Syllabus etc. with no exceptions). Since the Council is traditional and rational, LG 8, LG 16 etc. are no more a theological opening for innovation and liberalism. The liberals would have to cite the Council with the False Premise. There is no other rational choice.Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-bottom-line-is-that-lg-8-lg-14-lg.html
Posts
