Cardinal Kasper cited Vatican Council II to justify to justify the Amoris Laetitia -innovation and the Society of St.Pius X did not tell him, that the Council was traditional.
Pope Francis cited Vatican Council II to justify his Abu Dhabi Statement and conservative Catholics did not tell him that the Council is traditinal, if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are interpreted rationally.-Lionel Andrades
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 ?
Both groups produce the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.I avoid it.
So choose my interpretation of Vatican Council II.It is rational, non heretical, non schismatic, without a rupture with Tradition and Magisterial since it is in harmony with the past Magisterium, the popes and saints of the past.
When the present two popes choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the fake premise then they too will be Magisterial on the Council.So choose Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades on the blog Eucharistandmission.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-choose.html
MAY 17, 2021
In what way are you different from every one else?
JANUARY 24, 2020
Questions and Answers
1.In what way are you different from every one else?
I say there are no literal exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So I read Vatican Council II differently.
Most Catholics accept the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO). So the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.So they imply that there are people known in the present times saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) who are in Heaven. They would have to be visible and known, for them to examples of salvation outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
But we know that there are no such people seen on earth and if they existed in Heaven, they would only be known to God.
We can say a St. Emerentiana is a saint but no one on earth could have seen her without the baptism of water, or at least this is not a general capacity among human beings.No one can say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
The Church does not recognize, any one one on earth having the gift to see St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.
So I see BOD, BOB and I.I as just being possibilities.They exist only in our mind and are not real people whom we know.
So the Council Fathers made a mistake. They should not have mentioned BOD and I.I along with the text which says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).
This is an in-principle error in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers assumed hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was an objective mistake.
We can still read Vatican Council II however, without confusing what is invisible as being visible , implicit as explicit, subjective as objective.This is what I do.So my interpretation of the Council is different. There are only orthodox passages for me. The unorthodox passages are always hypothetical. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages .
When others read the text of Vatican Council II, there are orthodox and unorthodox passages which contradict them. This is what they wrongly assume.They refer to personally known and physically visible non Catholics, saved outside the Church. So this is a false premise and the inference is also wrong.
2. Who taught you this?
No one. I stumbled upon it and then got confirmations from many people. Some seemed to know about it but did not want to talk about it in public.
3. Are you saying that all the popes from Paul VI were wrong on Vatican Council II ?
Yes. They did not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise and in harmony with the past ecclesiology..
Yes. They did not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise and in harmony with the past ecclesiology..
4. Are you saying the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) made a theological mistake in 1949?
Yes since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston assumes unknown people are known exceptions to EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the professors of Boston College who were members of the St. Benedict Center.
This is an objective error. Yet the LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II and placed in the Denzinger.
5.Are you saying all the books on Vatican Council II are wrong?
Yes in general, since they interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to EENS. So they imply that there are practical exceptions when there are none.
New books can be written which re-interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise . So the Council would be in harmony with the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and 16th century EENS.
6.You do no reject Vatican Council II ?
No. I do not have to reject the Council. I re-interpret Vatican Council II rationally and then accept the traditional conclusion.
7.Do you have a problem with the German bishops ?
Personally no, I do not know any of them in particular. However if they interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, the Creeds and Catechisms with a false premise and inference, even after being informed, it would not be Catholic.
8.Who supports you ?
It is common knowledge that there are no visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.It is the same for LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc. This is common sense.So people in general support me. Every one supports me on this point, which is central to what I have to say.Even the professors of theology, who teach political nonsense at the universities, agree with me and say there are no physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 in the present times.
9.Are you presenting a new theology?
No. I am only pointing out that there are no objective exceptions of a non Catholc saved outside the Church. So when the New Theology is based upon this error, it is flawed.There cannot be a New Theology which says outside the Church there is salvation.
We are back to outside the Church there is no salvation supported by Vatican Council II ( AG 7).
We are back to outside the Church there is no salvation supported by Vatican Council II ( AG 7).
10.Are you saying all the books on Vatican Council by the Oxford University Press, Ignatius Press, Liturgical Press etc are obsolete?
Yes. Also the articles and books written by Pope Benedict are in error. The same mistake is made by traditionalist and sedevacantist authors.
11.The professors at secular and pontifical universities have to change their curriculum?
Yes. There is no theological basis for the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law, New Ecclesiology . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church. There are no known exceptions to EENS according to theVatican Council II.
Generally the professors are teaching error in theology.
12.How can you be correct and every one else be wrong ?
I keep saying invisible people are not visible in the present times.Every one agress with me here.
However the new theology of the popes since Paul VI, and that of the cardinals, bishops and professors at the universities, is based upon the philosophical principle that invisible people, saved outside the Church, are physically visible in 1965-2020.They assume these 'known and visible people' are practical examples of salvation outside the Church and so are exceptions to the ecclesiocentric eclesiology of the Church.This is obviously false. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment