Roberto dei Mattei wrote a book on Vatican Council II in which he did not avoid the false premise.The book was written with the fake premise. He could have avoided the error if he knew about it.There is no correction or apology from him. He continues to interpret the Council with the error instead of without the error.He will not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It's the same for Chris Ferrara,Michael Matt and the other
Lefebvrists.
The conferences with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in which Vatican Council II was described as only a pastoral Council, was in error.Vatican Council II is a dogmatic Council in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions and the Syllabus of Errors with no exception. - Lionel Andrades
APRIL 13, 2018
There is no apology or correction from Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara for the books they wrote on Vatican Council II.They need to apologise for their ignorance, which was innocent.
There is no apology or correction from Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara for the books they wrote on Vatican Council II.They need to apologize for their ignorance, which was innocent.There was no one there to correct them at that time.But now they know and should clarify that it was an error.
Now they know that if the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) refers to invisible or visible cases, decides how Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) will be interpreted.
Since BOD,BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II became an exception to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.LG 8, LG 16 etc were considered visible people known to be saved outside the Catholic Church. It was initially wrongly assumed, by Mattei and Ferrara,that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to visible cases, exceptions to EENS.
This was an irrational premise.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions or relevant to traditional EENS, since for me they refer to hypothetical cases, they are abstract images, speculation,theories.They are not concrete and real people.They can only be real and known in Heaven.So since they do not exist in the present times on earth they cannot be exceptions to EENS.The liberal theologians made a mistake.Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice it.
So in the books on Vatican Council II written by Ferrara and Mattei, Vatican Council II is projected as a rupture with Tradition since the writers mixed up what is invisible and as being visible.They then projected these unknowable people as being known examples of salvation outside the Church.
When they wrote their books, Vatican Council II could also have been projected as a continuity with Tradition and the dogma EENS.
So the Magisterium of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), made a mistake at that time.Since the CDF Prefect assumed that unknown people were known it was an objective mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven saved, were visible on earth, it was a factual mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven were also present on earth at the same time,he violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The same mistake unknowingly, was made by Christopher Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Attila Guimares, Michael Davies and Diterich von Hildebrand in their books and articles.
In their books they were saying that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.This was true.Since a false premise is used.The educated Catholic recognizes the non traditional conclusion.
Even Pope John Paul II was aware of the rupture with Tradition.However what was not known to also Fr.John Hardon, Fr. William Most, Monsgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and other good apologists, was that the actual false premise was visible for us BOD,BOB and I.I and it caused the rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, past ecclesiology etc).
Now that Ferrara and Mattei know, there must be an apology or correction from them.Soon there will be the summer conferences of the traditionalists where the same error will be repeated,like in former years, even after being informed.-Lionel Andrades
So in the books on Vatican Council II written by Ferrara and Mattei, Vatican Council II is projected as a rupture with Tradition since the writers mixed up what is invisible and as being visible.They then projected these unknowable people as being known examples of salvation outside the Church.
When they wrote their books, Vatican Council II could also have been projected as a continuity with Tradition and the dogma EENS.
So the Magisterium of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), made a mistake at that time.Since the CDF Prefect assumed that unknown people were known it was an objective mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven saved, were visible on earth, it was a factual mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven were also present on earth at the same time,he violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The same mistake unknowingly, was made by Christopher Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Attila Guimares, Michael Davies and Diterich von Hildebrand in their books and articles.
In their books they were saying that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.This was true.Since a false premise is used.The educated Catholic recognizes the non traditional conclusion.
Even Pope John Paul II was aware of the rupture with Tradition.However what was not known to also Fr.John Hardon, Fr. William Most, Monsgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and other good apologists, was that the actual false premise was visible for us BOD,BOB and I.I and it caused the rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, past ecclesiology etc).
Now that Ferrara and Mattei know, there must be an apology or correction from them.Soon there will be the summer conferences of the traditionalists where the same error will be repeated,like in former years, even after being informed.-Lionel Andrades
APRIL 12, 2018
Like the liberals Roberto dei Mattei uses an irrational premise to interpret the baptism of desire etc. So there is a new version of EENS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/like-tbe-liberals-roberto-dei-mattei.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but with the traditionalist interpretation of the Council by using Cushingite instead of Feeneyite theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-so-fault-does-not-lie-with.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : Vatican needs to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvrehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-vatican-needs-to-apologise-for.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : Books of Archbishop Lefebvre are obsolete now : so are the writings on Vatican Council II by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-books-of-archbishop-lefebvre-are.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : No contradiction or correction from Roberto dei Matteihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-no-contradiction-or-correction.html
DECEMBER 12, 2017
Neither is Roberto dei Mattei nor Maike Hickson willing to affirm the old ecclesiology of the Church with Feeneyite EENS and with such a big doctrinal and theological divide among us they are talking about the pope being in heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/neither-is-roberto-dei-mattei-not-maike.htmlAPRIL 12, 2018
Repost : The traditionalists in general have made an error.They have made a major error in theology and doctrinehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-traditionalists-in-general-have.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : I am waiting for Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, Robero dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara to affirm Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of EENS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-i-am-waiting-for-cardinal-burke.html
APRIL 11, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei still cannot state that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Neither will he affirm the dogma EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-still-cannot-state.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : Father Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari were also unknowingly following the new theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-father-nicholas-gruner-and-john.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-frnicholas-gruner-and-john.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and Fr.Nicholas Gruner express the new theology on Vatican Council II : it has a factual error, an objective mistake http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-christopher-ferrara-john-vennari.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : If we eliminate the 'known exceptions' theory, Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Kasper would have to admit that there is no change in doctrine : Vatican Council II supports the 16th century Jesuit missionaries
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-if-we-eliminate-known-exceptions.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : There is only one cause for the confusion. It has to be identified and corrected and then we have the old theology at Mass.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-there-is-only-one-cause-for.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost :John Vennari assumes being saved in invincble ignorance is an exception to the dogma
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-john-vennari-assumes-being-saved.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio : more mistakes by John Vennari
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-there-being-exceptions-is.html
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2018
It was commonly known that the present Magisterium was in schism with the past Magisterium but every one would would it brush it off and say Vatican Council II was responsible for this.They were really referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise and this was not known to Catholics.
Now we know. We've stumbled on to the missing link.If this was a ruse we have found it out. If it was a simple mistake we can now correct it.The truth is out finally.
It was only by interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational premise that the liberals and Masons could create a schism with the past Magisterium of the Church.
Now we simply avoid the false premise(invisible people are physically visible in the present times) and the interpretation of Vatican Council II is no more schismatic.
Catholics no more have to support heresy.
CMRI, MHFM and other Catholics who went into sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II and the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)- being interpreted by them with the false premise - can now re-interpret the Council.
The SSPX can re-interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors while conservative and liberal Catholic heretics, will no more be able to cite any reference in the text of the Council to support themselves.They depended on the false premise.
The old concept of liberals and traditionalists has now taken a jolt and could crumble or change.Since even Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei interpret Vatican Council II schismatically.They use the false premise and then reject the conclusion and blame it all on Vatican Council II.I don't interpret the Council like them.So I support Vatican Council II( premise-free).
But Remnant News, Catholic Herald and other Catholic media use the invisible people are visible premise.So do the apologists at Catholic Answers, EWTN and the National Catholic Register. It's the same with cardinals Kasper,Koch and Marx.
Conservative Catholics too are supporting heresy( new version of Vatican Council II,EENS, Catechisms etc) and schism( a rupture with the Magisterium of the 16th century with Vatican Council II).
Note: It is important when reading Vatican Council II not to assume the text as for and against EENS. Since this is a sign that the false premise is being used unknowingly.-Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 24, 2018
SSPX begin negotiations with Abp. Guido Pozzo : ask if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the Lionel Andrades model.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/sspx-begin-negotiations-with-abp-guido.html
FEBRUARY 24, 2018
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j is in schism error needs to be recanted : Catholics have to affirm heresy and schism of the present Magisterium in the name of Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise to elicit a non traditional and heretical conclusion which is a break with the past Magisterium of the Church.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-is-in-schism.html
FEBRUARY 24, 2018
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF),Vatican has no objections if all Catholic religious communities affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise : information exclusively on Lionel's Blog
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/the-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html
SUNDAY, JULY 28, 2019
Roberto de Mattei will still not tell Diane Montagne of LifeSitesNews that there are no personally known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance outside the Catholic Church and so he affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) according to the 16th century Magisterium and misionaries. The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not literal exceptions in 2019 to the strict interpretation of EENS.
Nor does he announce that he and Christopher Ferrara,Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari and others made a mistake when they interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being non hypothetical. They were wrongly assumed to be personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.So now there are exceptions to EENS. Invisible people are exceptions.
He does not announce that he and Christopher Ferrara wrote books on Vatican Council II with this objective mistake. They interpreted the Council with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism; with the irrational premise instead of without it.
Rorate Caeili does not announce that Mattei and Ferrara's concept of Vatican Council II was based on a mistake. So it is false. It was the interpretation of Pope Paul VI .
The same mistake was made by Michael Davies, Atila Sinke Guimares and in recent times by Paolo Pascualucci.
The traditionalists today attend the Latin Mass and proclaim the New Ecclesiology and New Theology in public.It is the same as at Mass in the vernacular. It is a rupture with the Tridentine Mass of the 16th century.In the 16th century, BOD, BOB and I.I referred to hypothetical cases and not explicit exceptions to traditional EENS. At the Latin Mass today BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. So they refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. Otherwise how could they be exceptions? This was the reasoning of the liberal theologians and the traditionalists over the last 50 years.
_______________________________
JULY 17, 2019
Mattei and Ferrara read Vatican Council II superficially and wrote books misleading Catholics ( Graphics)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/mattei-and-ferrara-read-vatican-council.html
MAY 5, 2018
DECEMBER 14, 2017
No contradiction or correction from Roberto dei Mattei
___________________________________________________________________
Professor de Mattei, who directs the magazine Radici Cristiane and the Corrispondenza Romana News Agency, has published countless articles and nearly 20 books. His latest has been recently translated into English –
Vatican II was a “historical turning point,” he told me. Some Council Fathers saw a more optimistic period in bloom. Others, more conservative, did not. 1
-Lionel Andrades
RELEVANT LABELS/ TAGS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS BLOG
Nicene Creed(10)
Nicene Creed was changed with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistake(5)
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite)(2)
Cushingis(2)
Cushingism(104)
Cushingismo(5)
Cushingite(3)
Cushingites(1)
Cushngism(2)
____________________________________
JANUARY 27, 2018
What is Feeneyism? (Graphics)
JANUARY 27, 2018
What is Cushingism ?(Graphics)
Graphics (44)
________________________________________________
JULY 11, 2018
This is Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) which would be 'extremist' for Angela Merkel's Germany.So the German Catholic bishops are denying it,and are giving the Eucharist at Holy Mass to Protestants, since the Catholic bishops have rejected Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and interpret the Council with Cushingism.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/this-is-vatican-council-iifeeneyite.html
JULY 11, 2018
Catholics in Russia need to go on mission and evangelise there based on Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/catholics-in-russia-need-to-conduct.html
JULY 6, 2018
What happens when Cardinal Marx knows...will he accept this reality, or will he go into schism?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-happens-when-cardinal-marx.html
_____________________________________________
APRIL 25, 2018
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/christopher-ferrara-and-roberto-dei.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Like the liberals Roberto dei Mattei uses an irrational premise to interpret the baptism of desire etc. So there is a new version of EENS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/like-tbe-liberals-roberto-dei-mattei.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html
APRIL 11, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei still cannot state that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Neither will he affirm the dogma EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-still-cannot-state.html
DECEMBER 27, 2017
Brunero Gherardino had it wrong and Roberto dei Mattei based his writings upon the Monsignor's irrational theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/brunero-gherardino-had-it-wrong-and.html
Like the liberals Roberto dei Mattei uses an irrational premise to interpret the baptism of desire etc. So there is a new version of EENS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/like-tbe-liberals-roberto-dei-mattei.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html
APRIL 11, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei still cannot state that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Neither will he affirm the dogma EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-still-cannot-state.html
DECEMBER 27, 2017
Brunero Gherardino had it wrong and Roberto dei Mattei based his writings upon the Monsignor's irrational theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/brunero-gherardino-had-it-wrong-and.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html
APRIL 11, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei still cannot state that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Neither will he affirm the dogma EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-still-cannot-state.html
DECEMBER 27, 2017
Brunero Gherardino had it wrong and Roberto dei Mattei based his writings upon the Monsignor's irrational theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/brunero-gherardino-had-it-wrong-and.html
APRIL 24, 2018
Vatican Council II is not how Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei interpret it (Graphics) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/vatican-council-ii-is-not-how_24.html
APRIL 25, 2018If you interpret Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth in other religions) as referring to known or unknown people in the present times you have two interpretations of Vatican Council II : If you interpret the baptism of desire as referring to invisible or visible people saved outside the Church in the present times you have two interpretations of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/if-you-interpret-lumen-gentium-8.htmlAPRIL 12, 2018Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresyhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html DECEMBER 15, 2017https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-traditionalists-in-general-have.html
You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-can-interpret-vatican-council-ii.html
NOVEMBER 8, 2017
Books of Archbishop Lefebvre are obsolete now : so are the writings on Vatican Council II by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/11/books-of-archbishop-lefebvre-are.html
______________________________________
Vatican Council II is not how Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei interpret it (Graphics) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/vatican-council-ii-is-not-how_24.html
APRIL 25, 2018
APRIL 25, 2018
If you interpret Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth in other religions) as referring to known or unknown people in the present times you have two interpretations of Vatican Council II : If you interpret the baptism of desire as referring to invisible or visible people saved outside the Church in the present times you have two interpretations of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/if-you-interpret-lumen-gentium-8.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresyhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html
DECEMBER 15, 2017
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-traditionalists-in-general-have.html You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-can-interpret-vatican-council-ii.html
NOVEMBER 8, 2017
Books of Archbishop Lefebvre are obsolete now : so are the writings on Vatican Council II by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/11/books-of-archbishop-lefebvre-are.html
______________________________________
JUNE 11, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.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.
3.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).
4.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.
5.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.
6.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).
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
10.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.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.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.
3.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).
4.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.
5.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.
6.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).
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
10.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.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -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 inferenceThey are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusionVatican 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 PremiseLG 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 InferenceThey are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational ConclusionVatican 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 AndradesPromoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.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@
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -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.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
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@
___________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment