Monday, May 31, 2021
How can Catechists and priests in my parish and diocese , not affirm the Creeds in public and continue to interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise ?
In my parish the Catechists do not affirm the Athanasius Creed, change the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed, re-interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a false premise, reject the dogma extra eccclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church) and attend Holy Mass.
Those who teach the young children include, dedicated persons , well meaning Italians, like Giorgio and Ennio. But not to affirm the Creed in public is a mortal sin.
Then they teach the same errors to the children and assist at Holy Mass.
Even the priests of the diocese are not affirming the Catholic faith in the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Rome where the bishop was Gino Reali.
How can Catechists and priests not affirm the Creeds in public and interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise ?
-Lionel Andrades
MAY 30, 2021
In my parish the priests are not saying that they affirm the Athanasius Creed, that they interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed rationally,and that they interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms, without the false premise. They actually agree with me
In my parish the priests are not saying that they affirm the Athanasius Creed, that they interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed rationally,and that they interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms, without the false premise.
They actually agree with me. They choose heresy, schism and irrationality as if this is some 'New Information' they have to accept to remain priests.
They do not deny what I have written on this blog.
Pope Francis could call this 'going forward'.But we cannot support sin and Satan and go forward. -Lionel Andrades
MAY 30, 2021
In my parish the priests reject the Athanasius Creed, change the Nicene and Apostles Creed and re-interpet Vatican Council II irrationally and do not deny it. They agree with me!
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-my-parish-priests-reject-athanasius.html
https://www.smnazaret.it/2021/04/prime-comunioni-2021/
____________________________________________________
MAY 30, 2021
We cannot change Aristotle's laws of logic or use a false premise to create a New Theology and call it Catholic or Magisterial, in the parish. They must not lie, give false information and then pretend it is Catholic. Pope Benedict needs to apologise for this non Catholic philosophy and theology he promoted all these years
We cannot change Aristotle's laws of logic or use a false premise to create a New Theology and call it Catholic or Magisterial, in the parish.
They must mot lie, give false information and then pretend it is Catholic.
Jesus is also the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
The laws of philosophy and theology in the Catholic Church have been changed at large and officially and so the interpretation of Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents are not Catholic or Magisterial.So Catholics are not obliged to follow them.Pope Benedict needs to apologise for this non Catholic philosophy and theology he promoted all these years, for political or other reasons. - Lionel Andrades
_________________________
MAY 30, 2021
In my parish the priests have changed the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed and rejected the Athanasius Creed and they offer Holy Mass in Italian. They interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to project a non traditional conclusion and then then offer Holy Mass.
In my parish the priests have changed the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed and rejected the Athanasius Creed and they offer Holy Mass in Italian.
They interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to project a non traditional conclusion and then then offer Holy Mass.
With a fake premise they have made the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the old Catechisms obsolete and they offer Holy Mass.
They do not deny what I have written here.It's official for them. It is all public.
They offer the Sacrament of Confession, for reconciliation with God.They consider it important and necessary- and it is. It's a gift of God, given to the Catholic priest, for all of us,to save us from going to Hell, with mortal sins on our soul.
Most people are going to Hell since they die with mortal sins on their soul.They also die outside the Catholic Church;without Catholic faith and the baptism of water(AG 7).The Gospel at Sunday Mass today tells us that Jesus wanted every one to be baptised with water and to follow his teachings in the Catholic Church.This was the only Church he founded.It is the only Church which existed at the time he was in Jerusalem. -Lionel Andrades
_________________________
MAY 29, 2021
Scandal at my parish
I affirm the Athanasius Creed (Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally...)in the parish but the priests and many of the parishioners do not do the same.
I live in the parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea.It is a 20-minute drive from Rome's Battistini Metro Station.How can they offer/attend Holy Mass and not affirm the infallible teaching of the Athanasius Creed?
I affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally in the parish but the priests and most of the parishioners do not do so.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. In other words, they refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. They refer to physically visible people saved without faith and the baptism of water.Invisible and unknown people cannot be exceptions to the Creed. So with this irrationality they make the Athanasius Creed obsolete.
My interpretation of Vatican Council II is rational and traditional.It is not a break with the Creeds.
How can the priests and people offer/attend Holy Mass with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II etc ?
When the priests and people in the parish do not affirm the Athanasius Creed and Vatican Council II, do they no have to go for the Sacrament of Confession, end the scandal and correct themselves in public ?
For me the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only. I cannot meet or see someone saved as such.It is only God who can know if someone is saved with BOD and I.I. So there are no practical cases of BOD and I.I for me.There are also no practical exceptions to the past Magisterial ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
But with visible for them,BOD and I.I, the priests and catechists and others in the parish, reject the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
They change the interpretation of Vatican Council II.Since for them, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc contradict the dogma EENS. There are practical exceptions for them.
So they have rejected the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.
They have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed. It is " I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( so EENS is rejected)".
They have changed the meaning of the Apostles Creed. It is " I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,'which teaches the Catholic Church today that there is known salvation outside the Church and so the Creeds and Catechisms are obsolete in their old understanding".
They have changed the meaning of the First Commandment which now indicates for them that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation and so there is true worship in non Christian religions.
This is public heresy, scandal and schism and Holy Mass is offered/ attended, by all in the parish.
This scandal has to be rectified in public, before absolution is given in the Confessional. -Lionel Andrades
https://www.smnazaret.it/
MAY 28, 2021
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II the great Catholic Tradition does not stop on the eve of Vatican Council II
Peter Kwasniewski writes on the blog 1Peter5
If someone were to ask me “Why be a Catholic?,” I would reply: The theology of the Church in its apostolic, patristic, and scholastic plenitude, a grand oak tree birthed from a tiny acorn, showing in its mighty trunk and vast crown the power of the principles at root. As John Henry Newman saw and described so well in writing the work that accompanied his entry into the Roman Church, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the truth unfolds in strength and stability across the ages of faith. Whether we take up the formidable Summa theologiae of St Thomas Aquinas with its seried ranks of syllogisms or simply consult any standard catechism from the Counter-Reformation down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council, we will find one and the same Catholic Faith, always confessing the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the perfect humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, the virginal maternity of Mary, the veneration of the saints, the life of grace, virtues, prayer, worship, and sacraments, the promise of eternal life in the bliss of the beatific vision.-from A Reply to the Discouraged Seminarian
https://onepeterfive.com/a-reply-to-the-discouraged-seminarian-there-are-6000-reasons-to-remain-catholic/
Down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council II ? Why did Peter Kwasniewski have to stop here.
Why? Since he is using the narrative of the progressivists and the Lefebvrists.
Kwasniewski, as he puts it in the article, 'allows the enemy to dictate the terms of the entire debate'. He interprets the Council like the Modernists.
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II the great Catholic Tradition does not stop on the eve of Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
https://onepeterfive.com/a-reply-to-the-discouraged-seminarian-there-are-6000-reasons-to-remain-catholic/
__________________________
MAY 27, 2021
Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ( Updated )
Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (Updated)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.-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
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
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@
___________________
The FSSP may offer Mass facing the East and give the Eucharist on the tongue, kneeling, but with the false premise, they are in a big rupture with Tradition and Steve Skojec and his family have to live with it
Steve Skojec on his blog 1Peter5 has written about 'crippled religion' and the contradictions and confusion he faces. It must be the same for Peter Kwasniewki. Since in a report to a seminarian, Kwasniewski writes,on 1Peter5 that Catholic Tradition ended on the eve of the Second Vatican Council II.
Peter Kwasniewski would be having similar confusions and doubts, since like Steve, he interprets all Magisterial documents with a false premise and inference. So his conclusion has to be non traditional. Then they both would wrongly blame Vatican Council II. Even the FSSP priests interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms with the same fake premise and they offer the Latin Mass.
This will not be helpful for Steve and his family. Since assuming he interprets Vatican Council II and Church documents, without the irrationality, he will return to Feeneyite EENS, the Athanasius Creed's outside the Church there is no salvation, with no exceptions, and an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
This would put him out of step with the FSSP since they are liberal in their ecclesiology( because of the false premise) and are only traditional on the Mass. They interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology, created with the false premise, just like Pope Francis. But then, also just like Steve Skojec and Peter Kwasniewski.
Fine mess we are all in I would agree.
Steve and Peter will have to interpret VC2 without the false premise. This would make them traditonalists on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, like the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, NH and the Most Holy Family Monastery,New York.
This would be a beginning to make sense in his mind, to clear things up so that there is no hermeneutic of rupture with the past.Neither will Vatican Council II be an issue any more for him. Since when the Council is traditional collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are not contradicted
But there still is the problem of the FSSPX parish. They may offer Mass facing the East and give the Eucharist on the tongue,kneeling, but with the false premise, they are in a big rupture with Tradition and Steve and his family have to live with it.-Lionel Andrades
Saying “No” to Crippled Religion
Sunday, May 30, 2021
I am not saying any thing new and neither am I rejecting Vatican Council II.Michael Sean Winters, John Allen jr and Massimo Faggioli know it and they are remaining silent as if I do exist. Bishop Robert Barron and the Word on Fire apologists are also having a hard time
I am not saying any thing new and neither am I rejecting Vatican Council II.Michael Sean Winters, John Allen jr and Massimo Faggioli know it and they are remaining silent as if I do exist. Bishop Robert Barron and the Word on Fire apologists are also having a hard time. - Lionel Andrades
MAY 18, 2021
Choose Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades on the blog Eucharistandmission
MAY 18, 2021
Why should Catholics choose the progressivist and Lefebvrist interpretation of Vatican Council II with a false premise instead of mine without the fake premise ?
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-choose.html
MAY 17, 2021
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ? Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office(CDF) made an objective mistake. Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, made an objective error.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-choose-irrational.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search?q=Vatican+Council+II+according+to+the+blog+Eucharistandmission
_____________________________________
JUNE 22, 2019
You are guilty of the error you accuse me of, an inability to admit, in this case, that the Church has declared an unbaptized catechumen in heaven, with St Emerentiana. Your only rebuttal is that the Church could not possibly know if St Emerentiana is in heaven without water baptism( and so we should not posit St.Emerentiana as an exception to EENS, secondly someone in the past is only a hypothetical case today.A possibility saved without the baptism of water in the past, known only to God, cannot be a practical and objective exception to the dogma EENS.Thirdly even if she was saved without the baptism of water as is speculated it does not mean that the possibility is an actual exception to the dogma EENS in the present times(1965-2019) (and thus we should view the object of the Church's public cult for this catechumen saint as merely hypothetical!!),( She is a saint and the cult can continue but please do not say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
You would not know and the Church has not said that any particular person would know and has the gift of seeing people in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water.) and thus your entire apologetic is flawed with the fallacy of petitio principii.
I have also proven to you that you personally do not know of any LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 case in the present times ( 1965-2019) saved outside or within the Church.You have agreed with me. I have also proven to you that you are afraid to admit this common place and obvious conclusion in public , since it will....and for whatever other reason.
These are two important points that you and I have in agreement) other than the fact that you have failed to show where the Church says the indelible mark is absolutely necessary for salvation ( The Catechism of Pope Pius X says that the baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation. I sent you a citation.You ignored it.I also quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257 The Necessity of Baptism).Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(Ad Gentes 7).The norm for salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and not the baptism of desire. (of course, the Church teaches no such thing, otherwise you would have produced the teaching),( If you want more teachings I could produce them, for example the three Church Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the statements of the pope in the ordinary magisterium, the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation and so infers faith and baptism is necessary for all with no exception, the Syllabus of Errors etc, etc,) and that you rely on your own private interpretation of councils and catechisms rather than the public teaching of the Church and 2,000 years of tradition.( I affirm the public interpretation of the popes before Pius XII who did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were known people saved outside the Church. They did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to EENS. It is the SSPX which is at odds with the popes over the centuries. They affirm BOD, BOB and I.I like the popes, since Pius XII.Then with this irrationality(invisible BOD, BOB and I.I cases are physically visible to them) they go back over the centuries and re-interpret the popes as suggesting BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them.Then they say that all the popes contradicted Fr. Leonard Feeney.)
You admit that you do not know of any case of BOD, BOB and I.I which could be an exception to EENS in 2019 .Yet you do not state this in public. You do not want me to quote you. Even a non Christian would agree and say that he knows that there are no BOD,BOB and I.I cases known on earth.They could only be known to God. This is something obvious for human beings in general.And yet you are not sure of yourself on something which will not be denied even by non Catholics.You don't want to be quoted.
So you are allowing the SSPX to continue to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and so change the original meaning of EENS.You will not correct them in public. This is heresy. It is a mortal sin of faith.
You also know that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not refer to practical exceptions to EENS. I have had to spend time explaining it to you and this is not possible with others. Yet you are keeping silent about this and do not inform the SSPX, the traditionalists and the Vatican.Since then they will call you a Feeneyite and not give you the importance they do presently.You do not want to be quoted because of your private interests.You also do not want to admit that like Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and the others you were wrong about Vatican Council II all these years.
Your priority should be Jesus and his Church.
-Lionel Andrades
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no literal case of the baptism of desire.Not a single case.
From the Book Bread of Life by Father Leonard Feeney:
Page 25... " it is now: Baptism of water or damnation! if you do not desire that water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it you cannot be saved."
Lionel: He was correct.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) says every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same (1257 The Necessity of Baptism). The Catechism of Pope Pius X says the same...So Fr. Leonard Feeney was repeating the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II also says, for salvation, faith and the baptism of water is needed .(AG 7, LG 14). It is referring to Catholic faith and the baptism of water.The reference in Vatican Councl II (AG 7) is to salvation and not just justification.
Page 40.... " It is sinful to call a man to salvation by offering them Baptism of Desire.
Lionel : Yes. Since we cannot say that any particular person will be saved with the baptism of desire.
__________________
" A Baptism of Desire Catholic is NOT a member of the Catholic church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of the faithfully departed"
Lionel: He does not exist. There is baptism of desire case on earth.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no literal case of the baptism of desire.Not a single case.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019
Why should Brother Andre Marie interpret CCC 846 according to the liberals and heretics and not me ? He is affirming CCC 846 and EENS, CCC 846 and CCC 847-848.He does not have to choose as the CDF Secretaries. Morandi and Di Noia,want him to do.
Comment
The issue, however, is that CCC 846 states the dogma and then changes its meaning.
The meaning is only changed if in your mind BOD, BOB and I.I 1 refer to exceptions to EENS.
CCC 846 Changes the dogma's meaning from outside the Church to inside the Church.
CCC 846 does not say that inside the Church there is salvation for me, since BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible and unknown .
CCC 846 could be saying that inside the Church there is salvation for Cardinal Ratzinger and most Catholics since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to visible and known people saved outside the Church. So they are exceptions to EENS for them.
It depends upon how you look at it.
Why should Brother Andre Marie MICM interpret CCC 846 according to the liberals and heretics and not me ?
Why should he be irrational and assume unknown and invisible people are known and physically visible and then create a theology upon this objective error?
The CCC, by changing the “Outside Church No Salvation” dogma to”Inside Church Is Salvation”, committed an act of heresy.
But you too X, are interpreting CCC 846 like the CDF.For you BOD, BOB and I.I refer to personally known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church.This is why there is salvation for you 'inside ' the Church.Or outside the Church there is salvation with BOD, BOB and I.I. It is a subtle error.
Brother Andre Marie MICM in his Doctrinal Letter to the CDF has said that there are no personally known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance etc. So CCC 846 does not contradict the dogma EENS, which he also affirms.
He is affirming CCC 846 and EENS, CCC 846 and CCC 847-848.
He does not have to choose as the CDF Secretaries. Morandi and Di Noia,want him to do.
Final: Changing a dogma's meaning is an act of heresy.
Not interpreting and accepting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS would also be heresy ?
-Lionel Andrades
1
BOD(baptism of desire) , BOB(baptism of blood) and I.I (invincible ignorance)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2018
The present position of the Church on this issue is irrational, non traditional and heretical. It is schism with the past popes and the Church Councils on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is an official error.
I believe in Bob, Bod and II EXACTLY as taught by the Catholic Church unlike Father Feeney who did not and was excommunicated!
I know you believe in the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) exactly as taught by the Catholic Church after 1949.For the Church BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENs. In other words they refer to known people, personally known. They are literal cases.So in this way they are exceptions.
If they were no visible and known people outside the Church they would not be exceptions.
But how can they be visible and known people when they are in Heaven and known only to God?
But how can they be visible and known people when they are in Heaven and known only to God?
The present position of the Church on this issue is irrational, non traditional and heretical. It is schism with the past popes and the Church Councils on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is an official error.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/frleonard-feeney-did-not-have-to-reject.html
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/catholics-can-interpret-vatican-council.html
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/until-today-popes-and-cardinals-make.html
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Pope Benedict confirmed this error in public ( Avvenire, March 2016) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference, question and answer session( March 1, 2018). So Fr. Leonard Feeney held the de fide teaching on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I and those who excommunicated him were teaching heresy.
I can not even imagine how you could possibly defend Father Feeney who at the very LEAST misunderstood the teaching of the Catholic Church on BOB, BOD and II
Fr: Leonard Feeney was not saying any thing knew. Instead he was rejecting the theological innovation, based on an irrationality, which was brought into the Catholic Church.
He was affirming the 'strict' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; outside the Church there is no salvation.He was doing this without assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood( BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation with no known exceptions( Catechism of the Catholic Church, Athanasius Creed, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).
At the same time he theoretically and hypothetically accepted BOD, BOB and I.I as is seen in his book The Bread of Life. He could, conceive of the theoretical case of the unknown catechumen who desired the baptism of water before he died and would allegedly be saved.For him it could only result in justification. For salvation the baptism of water was always needed.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X, like Fr. Leonard Feeney says that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation and that Protestants etc are on the way to Hell since they are outside the Church. This Catechism also mentions the case of someone theoretically being saved in invincible ignorance etc.It does not state that this is a known person saved outside the Church. Since obviously there is no such known person. This is a given.
However liberal theologians interpreted invincible ignorance in this Catechism, and magisterial documents in general, as referring not to an invisible person. For me however this Catechism refers to a physically invisible person who is allegedly saved in invincible ignorance.
So for the theologicans this Catechism would contradict itself and the dogma EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This error was also overlooked by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and those who have had their religious formation under him or his bishops.
They all interpret invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X as contradicting the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are also made a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16h century.
Pope Benedict confirmed this error in public ( Avvenire, March 2016) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference, question and answer session( March 1, 2018).
So Fr. Leonard Feeney held the de fide teaching on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I and those who excommunicated were teaching heresy. They were rejecting traditional EENS with known and visible for them cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.For Fr.Leonard Feeney literally there were no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/frleonard-feeney-did-not-have-to-reject.html
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/catholics-can-interpret-vatican-council.html
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/until-today-popes-and-cardinals-make.html
Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there.
When Father Feeney said over and over and over again was that there was no such thing as baptism of blood(BOB), baptism of desire (BOD) or invincible ignorance (I.I). He WAS wrong.
For example in his Book " Bread of Life" on page 41 He openly denounces BOB , BOD and II as ever existing in probability and/or reality.
For him literally there could be no such thing as BOD, BOB and I.I. And he is correct.Don't you agree?. Are you saying that literally, objectively, there are BOD, BOB and I.I cases? Of course not! You are saying what is obvious, what is common sense.It was the same with him. You are saying the same thing as him.
In his book he is interpreted as theologically rejecting BOD,BOB and I.I as exceptions. As exceptions and not as hypothetical cases.
He does not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there.
They do not exist in our reality. Literally they are not there. You can have many wonderful thoughts about BOD, BOB and I.I but they do not exist for us in reality.This is the bottom line and he knew it.
-Lionel Andrades
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation.
Father Feeney denied BOB, BOD or II at the death of someone as professed by God alone. It does NOT matter whether we could know of such a person or not for Father Feeney was excommuniicated for NOT believing in BOB, BOD or II under ANY circumstances before or after death.
He denied that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
BOD,BOB and I.I at the death of someone known only to God is known only to God. So how can it be an objective example of known salvation outside the Church? How can it be an exception to the teaching on all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation? ( Catechism of St.Pius X).
In his book The Bread of Life he referred to the case of the catechumen.So he was not denying BOD, BOB and I.I hypothetically, in theory.
He was saying that BOD, BOB and I.I were not practical exceptions to EENS. Literally we do not know of any BOD, BOB and I.I case in the present times.
Those who excommunicated him wrongly assumed that there were personally known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I which were objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. This is irrational reasoning.
Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistakehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/fr-leonard-feeney-was-correct-invisible.html
SEPTEMBER 15, 2018
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
I can not even imagine how you could possibly defend Father Feeney who at the very LEAST misunderstood the teaching of the Catholic Church on BOB, BOD and II.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there are no cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) relative to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is how I understand it.
I agree with him. Literally there are no cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in our reality in 2018.These are references to only hypothetical cases.
We cannot meet or see someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I. Neither could they do so over the last 100 years.
So I accept BOD, BOB and I.I as hypothetical. I do not reject them. They cannot be anything else.
The popes of the past did the same.When the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it is a reference to a physically invisible case. So it is not a contradiction when the Catechism also says that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
So Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
It was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who were irrational.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 15, 2018
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2018
If Fr.Leonard Feeney referred to the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance literally, he was not wrong. Literally there are no such cases.
So sorry Lionel, Father Feeney was wrong in what he said about Bob, Bod and II when he denied
their very existence
Lionel:
If he was referring to the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and
being saved in invincible ignorance literally, he was not wrong.
Literally there are no such cases.
_________________________
VCII was the worst council we ever had and did away with the understanding of BOB, BOD and I as understood for many centuries.
Lionel: At Vatican Council II they repeated the error made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and this can be seen clearly in Lumen Gentium 14 where it says only those who know need to enter the Church. This error comes direct from the Letter (1949).
However the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.-Lionel Andrades
LINKS FROM THE RIGHT HAND BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS
- Lionel Andrades in five steps (3)
- Lionel Andrades' Catholic beliefs (8)
- Lionel Andrades' description of Feeneyism and Cushingism (6)
- Lionel Andrades' intepretation of Vatican Council II and Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (14)
- Lionel Andrades' interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS (9)
- Lionel Andrades' interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS : Questions and Answers (9)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
