Wednesday, July 15, 2020
PISAI and Gregorian University agree to interpret Magisterial documents with the false premise instead of without it for the next five years
On June 30, 2020, the agreement between PISAI and the Pontifical Gregorian University was renewed for the next five academic years according to PISAI. 1
The agreement was signed by Fr. Diego Sarrió Cucarella M.Afr., As Dean of PISAI, and Fr. Nuno da Silva Gonçalves S.J., Rector of the Gregorian. It aims to encourage collaboration in the context of interreligious dialogue, the relationship between Christianity and Islam and scientific study as a tool for the acquisition of the historical, philosophical, theological and political knowledge necessary for the analysis of relations between Christians and Muslims.
To achieve this goal both istitutions have agreed to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents with the false premise instead of the without it.So a rupture is created with the historical understanding of Islamism, in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades
1
FEBRUARY 26, 2020
Without the irrationality on Vatican Council II Cardinal Michael L. Fitzgerald would not be able to hold his liberalism on other religions
Cardinal Michael L. Fitzgerald who is unable to affirm Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II nor interpret the Council rationally for political reasons has been granted an award according to PISAI. 1
A papal nuncio to Egypt and delegate to the Arab League he headed the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue(PCID) from 2002 to 2006.He always interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise. Pope Francis made him a cardinal last year.
Upon ordination in 1961 he studied Dogmatic Theology( based upon the false premise) at the Jesuit Gregorian University.He attended lectures by Fr.Karl Rahner Sj and Fr.Yves Congar OP who also chose to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise instead of without it.2
In inter religious dialogue he does not proclaim the necessity of believing in Jesus in the Catholic Church for salvation.
Like the other English bishops, known for their pro-Masonic slant, he proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour but this does not mean that non Christians cannot be saved outside the Church, for him, even when they do not believe in Jesus.
So there is a vague proclamation of Jesus which accomodates salvation in other Christian communities even when they propose mortal sins of faith( abortion, sodomy etc).
According to Vatican Council II 'the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions' (NA 2) but does not consider other religions as paths to salvation(AG 7).The Council Fathers, some of them, accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which wrongly assumed hypothetical and theoretical possibilities were known examples of salvation outside the Church.So what existed only in their mind were objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.They gave us Nostra Aetate. Without this irrationality, Cardinal Michael L. Fitzgerald would not be able to hold his liberalism on other religions and his rejection of traditional Catholic teachings.-Lionel Andrades
1
2
Adnane Mokrani was taught an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II at PISAI and the Angelicum
Adnane Mokrani, the first Islamic theologian to teach in a pontifical university - the Gregorian, chair of Islamic Studies obtained his doctorate at the Pontificial Institute of Arabic and Islamic studies (PISAI).But there was an error in his education. Vatican Council II was interpreted with a false premise. This was done to create an artificial rupture with the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
Mokrani also studied at the Angelicum, with a scholarship.There again he was taught an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
At PISAI they continue to present a false nterpretation of Islamism by using an irrational premise and inference to interpret the Council.Then they present this new version on the Islamic religion, as being Catholic teaching. So for Mokrani these new doctrines are Catholic teachings.
Mokrani interprets Catholic traditional teachings with the false version of Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and Creeds and so rejects exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He has written a book recently on the Death and Resurection of Jesus from an Islamic perspective.He was interviewed recently by the daily Avvenire.1
It may be mentioned that The Profession of Faith made at PISAI by Rev. Fr. Diego Sarrio Cucarella (President),Rev. Fr. Jason Welle OFM(Director of Studies ) and Rev. Fr. Francesco Baronchelli (Secretary) is false.Since they abjure traditional and magisterial teachings and documents, with the use of a false premise, inference and conclusion.It is similar to the archbishops and cardinal at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who follow the error. 2
PISAI does not affirm the Catholic Faith.They are afraid. Simple statements cannot be made.
They do not teach the Catholic Faith and have compromised with the Left for survival.
At the Catholic university in Belgium it is reported there are courses for Imams based on the false interpretation of Vatican Council II.
At the Catholic university in Belgium it is reported there are courses for Imams based on the false interpretation of Vatican Council II.
At the Catholic and secular, universities in Italy, Muslim professors have to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise, inference and conclusion.
Schisms and heresy are mortal sins of faith for Catholics.Yet the teaching staff at PISAI interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents, as a rupture with the popes and Church Councils over the centuries.They choose this rupture.
If they did not use the irrational premise, inference and conclusion they would have to say that Adnane Mokrani Professor at the Gregorian University on Islamic Studies and Youssef Sbai at the University of Padua, are outside the Catholic Church.
Similarly for Dr.Mobeen Shahid, a Catholic Director of an Islamic academic center for Dialogue in Rome,who now teaches Philosophy at the Urbaniana Pontifical University Rome does not speak and write about the truth of the faith.He interprets magisterial documents with the false premise, inference and conclusion to create the expected rupture with the traditional Catholic concept of other religions.At the Urbaniana University they interpret Vatican Council II with the politically correct error.
According to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) all need faith and baptism for salvation. This would include Mokrani and other Muslims.There are no exceptions to AG 7 mentioned in Vatican Council II. Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only.We cannot meet or see any one saved outside the Church.
So Vatican Council II affirms the Athanasius Creed which states all need Catholic faith for salvation.
The Council is also in harmony with the Catechism of the Catholic Church( 24 Q, 27 Q) on the need for non Catholics to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
The Council is also in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on ecumenism. Since Unitatis Redintigratio 3 ( Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II refers to a hypothetical case. In real life we cannot know of a Christian saved in his religion outside the Catholic Church. So there is no rupture in Vatican Council II with the old ecumenism of return.
According to Vatican Council II most people are oriented to Hell since they die without faith and baptism, necessary for salvation(AG 7).
This was not taught to Adnane Mokrani at PISAI or the Angelicum.-Lionel Andrades
1
2
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
The Profession of Faith made by Rev. Fr. Diego Sarrio Cucarella (President),Rev. Fr. Jason Welle OFM(Director of Studies ) and Rev. Fr. Francesco Baronchelli (Secretary) of PISAI is false.Since they abjure traditional and magisterial teachings and documents, with the use of a false premise, inference and conclusion.It is similar to the archbishops and cardinal at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who follow the error.
Scott Hahn's New Evangelisation is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise
JULY 15, 2020
Scott Hahn's New Evangelisation is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/scott-hahns-new-evangelisation-is-based.html
JUNE 21, 2020
St.Paul Center, Oblate School of Theology, Daughter of Professor Dismissed by Boston College confuse what is invisible as being visible then make false conclusions
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/stpaul-centeroblate-school-of-theology.html
JUNE 20, 2020
JUNE 21, 2020
Scott Hahn, George Weigel,Jimmy Akins have to say that the popes were wrong since Pius XII ?
JULY 2, 2020
All the books on Vatican Council II in general are written with a false premise, inference and conclusion and so are the books by the Lefebvrists, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Chris Ferrara, the last Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Roberto dei Mattei, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.They all have an error.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/all-books-on-vatican-council-ii-in.html
JUNE 19, 2020
Academic Dean of Oblate School of Theology,uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II to create a non traditional conclusion and the hermeneutic of rupture
Scott Hahn and Ralph Martin's New Evangelisation is 'new' because like the Vatican they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So there are artificial exceptions created
Scott Hahn and Ralph Martin's New Evangelisation is 'new' because like the Vatican they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So there are artificial exceptions created to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old concept of Mission.
The New Evangelisation of Cardinal Tagle is new since he is obligated to use the false premise( visible cases of LG 8, LG 16 etc).In this way there is an approved rupture with traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, with no known exceptions.
Traditional evangelisation or mission was not a rupture with Tradition since the false premise was not used over the centuries.
Now LG 8, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II, are intepreted with the false premise and so this creates a break with traditional- mission concepts.
In the past all needed to be Catholic for salvation and not only those who knew about Jesus and the Church.However in Vatican Council II(LG 14), invincible ignorance ( Letter of the Holy Office 1949) is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.So it is said that only those who know about Jesus and the Church need to enter the Church to avoid Hell.
For the Jesuits in the 16th century all needed to enter the Church for salvation and not only those who know about Jesus and the Church.Jesus did not mention any exceptions to John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Jesus did not mention any exceptions to the Great Commission.
The theologians have created these exceptions by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then projecting this illusion as an exception to Tradition.Cardinal Ratzinger approved this error.
LG 14 is a mistake in Vatican Council II but the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS.Since we do not know of any exception in real life.We cannot see or meet someone who will be saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance.
Similarly it was an error of the Council Fathers to mention a invincible ignorance (AG 7) with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).They could have assumed that invincible ignorance was an exception to EENS. This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=1HTTTzNSHHo&feature=emb_title
Michael and Peter Dimond did not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and the conclusion would be traditional.Now they know.
Michael and Peter Dimond did not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and the conclusion would be traditional.Now they know.
But they are not making the change. Their website was based upon the false interpretation of Vatican Council II.
For so many years, since they have been informed, they cannot or do not want to interpret Vatican Council II, without the false premise.
They criticize the ' Vatican Council II sect ', the mainline Catholic Church of the popes since Paul VI but do not mention that they too, the MHFM, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors etc).
I have written to them so many times.
Someone could ask them if LG 8, LG 14( baptism of desire), LG 16( invincible ignorance), UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to visible or invisible cases in 2020.If they are visible then they cannot be exceptions to the MHFM strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). If the MHFM considered LG 8 etc as exceptions to EENS and the rest of Tradition then they imply that there are physically visible cases, for them, in the present times, for there to be exceptions.But this would be a false premise. It is irrational.
But if they did not use the false premise then Vatican Council II would not contradict their understanding of EENS.
Yet becaue of this false premise Vatican Council II emerges, for them, as a rupture with Tradition.
When the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance was there a rupture with EENS ( Cantate Domino, Council if Florence 1441) ? Of course not. Not for me.The popes and saints over the centuries were referring to hypothetical cases only. They could not be objective people, non Catholics saved outside the Church. Since only God can know if somoene was saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism. So the BOD and I.I were never exceptions to EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake and so did some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.The same mistake is made by Michael and Peter Dimond.
If think what I write here is quite simple and easy to understand.
Would they admit that they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise like the 'Vatican Council II sect'?-Lionel Andrades
They criticize the ' Vatican Council II sect ', the mainline Catholic Church of the popes since Paul VI but do not mention that they too, the MHFM, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors etc).
I have written to them so many times.
Someone could ask them if LG 8, LG 14( baptism of desire), LG 16( invincible ignorance), UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to visible or invisible cases in 2020.If they are visible then they cannot be exceptions to the MHFM strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). If the MHFM considered LG 8 etc as exceptions to EENS and the rest of Tradition then they imply that there are physically visible cases, for them, in the present times, for there to be exceptions.But this would be a false premise. It is irrational.
But if they did not use the false premise then Vatican Council II would not contradict their understanding of EENS.
Yet becaue of this false premise Vatican Council II emerges, for them, as a rupture with Tradition.
When the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance was there a rupture with EENS ( Cantate Domino, Council if Florence 1441) ? Of course not. Not for me.The popes and saints over the centuries were referring to hypothetical cases only. They could not be objective people, non Catholics saved outside the Church. Since only God can know if somoene was saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism. So the BOD and I.I were never exceptions to EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake and so did some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.The same mistake is made by Michael and Peter Dimond.
If think what I write here is quite simple and easy to understand.
Would they admit that they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise like the 'Vatican Council II sect'?-Lionel Andrades
JULY 14, 2020
MHFM uses the false premise to interpret Vatican Council IIJULY 14, 2020
The St.Benedict Centers could affirm EENS and Vatican Council II without the Lefebvrist theology
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-stbenedict-centers-could-affirm.html
_______________________________
JULY 13, 2020
The CDF muist inform the pontifical universities , where the F.I seminarians are enrolled, and the Congregation for Catholic Education, to avoid the common error on Vatican Council II.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-cdf-muist-inform-pontifical.html
JULY 8, 2020
To understand what I write ask yourself...
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/to-understand-what-i-write-i-ask.html
The 'missing link' discovered : what makes Vatican Council II traditional or heretical
JUNE 11, 2014
___________________________________
Brother Andre Marie MICM was interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise like Fr. Leonard Feeney and Brother Francis Maluf MICM, the founders of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA.
Brother Andre Marie MICM was interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise like Fr. Leonard Feeney and Brother Francis Maluf MICM, the founders of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA.There will be no answer from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Was not LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) for them ? Yes or no ?
There will be no answer.-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
