Pope Pius XII was a modernist. The Letter of the Holy Offfice 1949 is modernism.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire in our reality, be visible examples of Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ? How can unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance in 1949-2021, be known exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation?
The LOHO is heretical and schismatic and is officially accepted by conservatives and liberals.It was referenced in Vatican Council II(LG 16) and approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria sj in two papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican.Fr.Rahner placed it in the Denzinger.LOHO created a New Theology in the Catholic Church.It states outside the Church there is known salvation.This is the New Theology of the liberals and Lefebvrists.
Lefebvrists are modernists in theology and doctrine. They go for the Latin Mass and allow themselves to be called traditionalists.They are an asset for modernist liberals.
The website Whispers of Restoration, supported by Peter Kwasniewski, are modernists on the old catechisms.
They interpert the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise. So all the interpretations of the old Catechisms are skewered.
Thomas Pink and Peter Kwasniewski are critical of the 'official theology' but they use the official theology to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, and are not aware of it.Thomas Pink has still not identified the precise sourse of what he calls the 'New Theology'.The New Theology for me comes from Pope Pius XII's error in the LOHO.The seeds of the error were there in the Baltimore Catechism.The Americanists placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section of the Catechism, as if the baptism of desire was visible and could be administered like the baptism of water.So the Catholic Church is divided today.Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake which is heretical but most of the Church considers it Magisterial.There are now two theologies being used in the interpretation of Magisterial documents, one is rational and the other irrational. The irrational version comes to us from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.It's also official schism.Those who attend the Latin Mass and do not use the offficial New Theology of 1949 are considered divisive.Since these priests offer the Traditional Latin Mass without the New Theology.
The SSPX, FSSP and the present two popes consider the LOHO Magisterial. I don't.How can LOHO reject the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors by considering unknown cases of BOD and I.i as being objective exceptions to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology? The Athanasius Creed and extra ecclesiam nulla salus are Magisterial for me and they do not mention any exceptions.LOHO is not magisterial.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and contradict the past Magisterium.
Louie Verrecchio affirms LOHO and rejects Feeneyite EENS. He affirms LOHO and rejects the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.The ecumenism of return has exceptions.Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, in Vatican Council II, has exceptions for EENS, for him.-He affirms LOHO and postulates exceptions for the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q).
We need an Oath Against Modernism which prohibits the common use of the false premise.- Lionel Andrades
JUNE 7, 2021
FSSP priests, Diana Montagna, Paulo Pascualucci, Enrico Maria Radaelli, Maria Guarini, Marco Tosatti and Roberto dei Mattei are modernists on Vatican Council II
FSSP priests, Diana Montagna, Paulo Pascualucci, Enrico Maria Radaelli,Maria Guarini, Marco Tosatti and Roberto dei Mattei are modernists on Vatican Council II.They use the fake premise to interpret the Council as a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).If they did not use this irrational approach they would be Feeneyites on EENS.
Now they affirm EENS with exceptions. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire are practical exceptions to EENS for them.
They affirm Vatican Council II with exceptions for EENS. Invisible and unknown cases, in 1965-2021, of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc, are objective examples of salvation outside the Church and objective exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors.
It is like Michael Voris and Christine Niles at Church Militant TV who say outside the Church there is no salvation and accept Vatican Council II with the false premise, indicating that outside the Church there is salvation.
All the apologists and newscasters on EWTN have to accept and interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.It is obligatory. May be it is the same for Michael Voris too in the Archdiiocese of Detroit.
Steve Skojec at the blog 1Peter 5 has decided to return to interpreting Vatican Council II and all the Creeds and Catechisms with the fake premise.Some of his sponsors have stopped sending their regular cheques.
Every one is following the official modernism.
The Athanasius Creed says outside the Church there is no salvation and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney says outside the Church there is salvation and every one does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This is heresy and schism with a false premise and it is magisterial for the present two popes, the Lefebvrists and the cardinals and bishops.Official modernism.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/fssp-priests-diana-montagna-paulo.html
______________________________
JUNE 6, 2021
Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II : Why should Catholics interpret the baptism of desire (LG 14), being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) and the baptism of blood with a false premise when a rational alternative is there
JUNE 5, 2021
Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (Updated June 5,2021)
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 ?
Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
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.
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. -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@
___________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment