I affirm Church Teachings and Documents. Vatican Council II is an ally
I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS
When Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise the Council is an ally. We can affirm Tradition along with Vatican Council II.
I affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.
I AVOID THE CONFUSION
Today's Christocentric missionaries will interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 29Q ( invincible ignorance) as being a practical exception to 24Q and 27Q ( outside the Church no salvation) in the same Catechism. They are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.
For Feeneyites 29 Q ( invincible ignorance) is only a hypothetical case. So LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation).
Also the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict the same Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846 ( AG 7 - all need faith and baptism for salvation.)
Cardinal Tagle's Cushingite missionaries, will also welcome other Christians, Protestans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, even if they officially believe contraception and abortion are not mortal sins. The false New Evangelisation, presents Jesus in a new Church, without the necessity of the traditional faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church of St. Ignatius of Loyola.
With the Rational Premise, Pope Francis and Cardinal Tagle could affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics ( Quas Primas ). Since the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents, would have returned to ecclesiocentrism. There would no more be a rupture with the Principle of Non Contradiction ( baptism of desire cases are visible in Heaven and on earth at the same time and so they are practical exceptions to EENS), of Aristotle.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021. They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also irrational and non Magisterial.
CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
ATHANASIUS CREED
Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.I do not know of any practical exception in the present times.
DOGMA EENS
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since they can only be hypothetical, always.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism.
Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.
NICENE CREED
In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible. I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
FOUR MARKS OF THE CHURCH
So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational premise.
APOSTLES CREED
In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS DOGMATIC
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8, LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.
For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in 1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC
Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The footnotes of Dignitatis Reditigratio, Vatican Council II refer to the Church in a secular state.With Vatican Council II ecclesiocentric and dogmatic, the Council would be an ally for a Catholic Government in a Catholic State. It would be important for the pope to be a Catholic to save their soul, since Vatican Council II is also saying outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation( Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).The Catholic Government may choose to grant religious liberty to non Catholics as during the time of the Papal States in Europe. The roots of Europe are Catholic and not Christian, unless it refers to the Catholic Church.
COLLEGIALITY, SYNODALITY
Collegiality and Synodality are not an issue when Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since in a Synod all wold have to interpret the Council with the Rational Premise and the so support the past ecclesiocentrism of the Syllabus of Errors, EENS, Catechisms of Trent and Pius X etc.
TRADITIONAL MISSION
Since Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric we are back to Traditional Mission according to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Every one with no known exception needs to enter the Catholic Church, with no mortal sin at the time of death, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
The New Evangelisation of Pope Benedict rejects ecclesiocentrism when it interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise. So the Church becomes Christocentric without remaining Ecclesiocentric as in the past.
It is only with ecclesiocentrism that there is a return to Traditional Mission. To save souls from going to Hell it is necessary to have a Catholic Government in a Catholic State like Italy.The present secular, liberal or Communist states are Satanic.They are supported by Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise which says outside the Church there is known salvation.So every one does not have to be Catholic to go to Heaven is the new teaching of George Soros and the Rotschild family.They present a Council which presents exceptions for EENS.
So there is no real evangelization in Europe.Since in Europe people know about Jesus but they are not being told by the Church that it is necessary to believe in Jesus, while being a member of the Catholic Church, with Catholic faith and the baptism of water, for salvation ( to avoid Hell ).
Now with radio and television even people in the poor countries of Asia and Africa know about Jesus but they do know tht he is the unique and only Saviour, who saves people from Hell in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church according to the Bible is His Mystical Body.
SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING
The Catholic Identity Conference held recently mentions the Social Reign of Christ the King while interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise this is contradictory.It also mentions George Soros when the interpretation of the Council by the Lefebvrists is approved by George Soros and the Rothschilds.
Catholics are not told that outside the Church there is no
salvation and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.So Catholics
should vote for a Political Party which supports the Social Reign of Christ the
King in politics.Christ must be the center of all politics. Christ must not
restricted to the liturgy.
When Vatican Council II supports the dogma EENS which says outside the Church there is no salvation then Catholics have an obligation to support a Catholic political party or candidate, who interprets the Council rationally.
Traditional Mission in the Church can only return when the Lefebvrists, Thucs and others interpret Magisterial Documents with the Rational Premise and avoid the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This irrationality is accepted by both the present two popes . So we have a political Left interpretation of the Council. There are two interpretations, one with the False Premise above and the other with the Rational Premise, which avoids the mistake above.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire be objective exceptions to the practical teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
This irrationality is accepted by both the present two popes . So we have a political Left interpretation of the Council. There are two interpretations, one with the False Premise above and the other with the Rational Premise, which avoids the mistake above.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire be objective exceptions to the practical teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
TRADITIONIS CUSTODE AND VATICAN COUNCIL II.
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path of the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who excercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Pietro et sub Pietro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself, who guides the Church.-Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies, Traditionis Custode.
Pope Francis calls Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit.
How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14 ( baptism of desire) and LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) for example ?
For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021.This is something obvious.
How can LG 14, LG 16, etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how Pope Francis and the Masons interpret Vatican Council II.It is different from rational way. I interpret the Council. I consider the interpretations of Vatican Council II with the rational premise as being Magisterial.It is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.
With Traditional Mission and ecclesiocentrism the Catholic political parties can proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and the non separation of Church and State, as a priority to save souls from Hell.
These are the teachings and documents of the Catholic Church which I affirm. -Lionel Andrades
__________________
OCTOBER 2, 2021
It is because of the error of Michael Davies and Dietrich von Hildebrand that Una Voce International(Davies) and the Roman Forum ( Hildebrand) did not correct Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise, in Traditionis Custode. They did not correct Andre Grillo and 180 signatories who criticized the Latin Mass based upon their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.They did not correct this mistake of the false premise, at the Amazon Synod and in the Abu Statement
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was interpreting the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise of the Letter of the Holy Office . So he changed the interpretation of the Creeds and Catechisms. He rejected Tradition.He also chose an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. This doctrinal chaos is followed by the SSPX bishops and the sedevacantist bishops and priests who had their formation under him. They were in schism like the liberals and the popes. The fake premise creates heresy and schism.
At the Catholic Identiy Conference they will continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and not the rational premise. They will also interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This is not our Catholic identity.
This is being political correct with the Left in the name of Tradition.
Michael Matt’s father and Archbishop Lefebvre had used the false premise to interpret the Creeds, Catechisms, EENS and Vatican Council II like the liberals and the ecclesiastics of that time.It was the same with Michael Davies and Dietrich von Hildebrand. I have mentioned this before and no one denies it.
It is because of the error of Michael Davies and Dietrich von Hildebrand that Una Voce International(Davies) and the Roman Forum ( Hildebrand) did not correct Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise, in Traditionis Custode.
They did not correct Andre Grillo and 180 signatories who critized the Latin Mass based upon their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.They did not correct this mistake of the false premise, at the Amazon Synod and in the Abu Statement etc. etc.-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 26, 2021
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, the right hand side column and he was followed in the error by Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Chris Ferrara,, Roberto dei Matteo, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. The SSPX bishops are still interpreting Magisterial documents with the false premise
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, the right hand side column and he was followed in the error by Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Chris Ferrara,, Roberto dei Matteo, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. The SSPX bishops are still interpreting Magisterial documents with the false premise
JULY 1, 2021
Pope Francis and Bishop Roland Minnerath create division in Dijon with the New Theology which the FSSP will have to accept of offer Holy Mass in French
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.
This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
Interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and Lionel Andrades
INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
JUNE 29, 2021
In Dijon, France Catholics do not have unity on the First Commandment, the Creeds, Catechisms, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II and Bishop Roland Minnerath is allowed to offer Holy Mass. The laity could ask the bishop and the fssp priests, religious communities and parishiones, to interpret Vatican Council Ii and Magisterial documents without the fake premise and instead to use the rational premise
SATURDAY, JULY 3, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests are a sign of disunity when they use the new theology with a false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion
BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS ARE A SIGN OF DIS-UNITY WHEN THEY USE THE NEW THEOLOGY WITH A FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND NON TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION
Bishop Roland Minnerath speaking to the laity said that the priest is a sign of unity.This is false. The bishop and the diocesan priests are a sign of disunity and rebellion.His New Theology has its foundation on a false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.He does not choose to interpret the Council with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.He is politically correct with the Left in France and so supports a theology of religions.
In John 3:5 and mark 16:16 Jesus tells us all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation.This is the only way God the Father chose for all to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.We need faith in Jesus in a Church, the Catholic Church.This was the only Church he founded.There were no Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals and Protestants with their doctrine at that time.The Church and its teachings do not change. But for Bishop Minnerath, they have changed.
He could only change the old theology of the Catholic Church,and so also the doctrines, with the use of a fake premise.So he does not have unity with the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation. For Bishop Minnerath there are exceptions.
He does not have unity with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return, since there are exceptions for him and not for me.
He does not have unity with the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q) since for him there are exceptions, while for me there are none.
Neither can he affirm Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7 – all need faith and baptism for salvation) with no exceptions in Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14( the baptism of desire).For him there are exceptions to AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in LG 16 and LG 14 and for me there are none.LG 16 and LG 14 are only hypothetical and invisible cases in 2021.
Instead he has written a book promoting the theology of religions which Pope John Paul II condemned ( CDF, Notification, Dupuis 2001).
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests are a sign of disunity and the laity must not allow them to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, create disunity with Church teachings and then offer Holy Mass.
I would like to be in unity with bishops and priests but when they use the false premise they are a sign of disunity with Jesus and His Church, outside of which there is no known salvation in 2021.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 2, 2021
The laity if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop's weak point is theology.The real issue for him and the present two popes , is not the Maass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism.
THE LAITY IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH, MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIBERAL BISHOP’S WEAK POINT IS THEOLOGY. THE REAL ISSUE FOR HIM AND THE PRESENT TWO POPES, IS NOT THE MASS BUT THE OLD THEOLOGY, THE OLD ECCLESIOCENTRISM.
The laity, if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop’s weak point is theology. The real issue for him and the present two popes, is not the Mass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism. The FSSP priests, are side stepping Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and are going back to the sources of Tradition This is the real problem for the bishop and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
1.The laity must know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II , one with the irrational premise and the other without it. They can choose the CDF interpretation of Vatican Council II or that of Lionel Andrades, without the irrationality.
2.There can also be two interpretations of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). One, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are seen as physically visible people saved outside the Church in 2021,or, as being only hypothetical and theoretical cases, which do not exist in our reality. So the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is rational and the other is irrational. Again the laity have to choose between the interpretations of the popes or Lionel Andrades. They, of course must choose the rational option and ask the bishop to do the same.
This has to be clear.
For it means that at Mass in Latin, French or that of the Orientals, the theology; the ecclesiology of all aspects of the Church will be traditional. There will be no rupture with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of Fr. Leonard Feeney, or the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. This means that the Catechisms of the Council of Trent and Pius X will not contradict itself, when the strict interpretation of EENS is supported along with hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WILL BE TRADITIONAL AND COHERENT BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II.
With the theology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II, being traditional and coherent, the bishop should be asked to affirm the faith.
If he refuses to affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed in public and cites Vatican Council II as a development of doctrine, he is interpreting the Council with the false premise.
Catholics of all Rites in France should be able to affirm Vatican Council II ( rational) and the Athanasius Creed (rational-with no known exceptions).
If the bishop affirms Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed with exceptions, it means he is using the false premise, and should be checked here.
If the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed is recited by the laity at Mass, in a Profession of Faith, it is meaningless, if they interpret the Creeds with the false premise instead of without it. If they interpret the BOD, BOB and I.I with the false premise, then they really change the interpretation of these two Creeds. One interpretation is rational and traditional and the other is irrational and a break with Tradition.
LAITY WILL OFTEN HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE INTERPRETATIONS WITH THE FALSE PREMISE AND WITHOUT IT SINCE THE CONCLUSION IS DIFFERENT
Similarly if the Four Marks of the Church are affirmed ( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic), it can be meaningless and misleading, if the distinction is not made between the fake and the rational premise. Since with the premise the conclusion differs. So the laity will often have to choose between the interpretation of Bishop Minnerath and Lionel Andrades.
It must be remembered that the bishop’s weak point is theology. He has to use the false premise to support his liberalism, ‘the theology of religions’.
TODAY THE HERESY OF THE FALSE PREMISE IS LIKE THE ARIAN HERESY OF THE PAST
The laity and the FSSP priests must know that like in the past there was the Arian heresy in the Church today there is the heresy of the false premise.It is like a theological virus which has become a spiritual epidemic in the Church.
So when they concelebrate Mass in Dijon, or elsewhere in France, the diocesan priest will not be a traditionalist, since he interprets Vatican Council II and other Church documents , with the false premise, which produces a non traditional conclusion.
Then because of the Leftist laws Bishop Roland Minnerath may want to interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the false premise. There is no tension or persecution.
THE BISHOP AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS ARE IN AN ‘IRREGULAR SITUATION’
The FSSP will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’. The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church. The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise, inference and conclusion.I am identifying it and pointing out the original premise and inference which was responsible for the traditional conclusion.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon need an organization or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics. According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organization Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
WE CAN PROCLAIM THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING BASED UPON THE EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
The Latin laity could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset. Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes. Change your premise and you change the Church. Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Once we are aware of the false premise, Pope Francis can create the Amazon and new rites, for the Mass and the ecclesiology of the Church will not change. It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 1, 2021
Bishop Minnerath takes advantage of the laity's lack of knowledge of theology https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/bishop-minnerath-takes-advantage-of.html
JULY 2, 2021
FSSP priests in Rome are allowed to offer the Latin Mass since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise
FSSP PRIESTS IN ROME ARE ALLOWED TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS SINCE THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE FALSE PREMISE.
The FSSP priests are allowed to offer Holy Mass, the ecclesiastics and secular authorities in Rome, since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and not without it.I would go for the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests in a small church in an alley in Rome.It was about the time Summorum Pontificum was issued.Fr.Kramer was the Rector.
The FSSP now offers the Latin Mass at the parish-church Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini, Rome.
The FSSP priests would never affirm the exclusivist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and would use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So their Latin Mass with the New Theology created by the false premise, was not really the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century with its exclusivist interpretation of EENS.
Fake premiseLumen 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
http://roma.fssp.it/parrocchia/
FSSP PRIESTS IN ROME ARE ALLOWED TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS SINCE THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE FALSE PREMISE.
The FSSP priests are allowed to offer Holy Mass, the ecclesiastics and secular authorities in Rome, since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and not without it.I would go for the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests in a small church in an alley in Rome.It was about the time Summorum Pontificum was issued.Fr.Kramer was the Rector.
The FSSP now offers the Latin Mass at the parish-church Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini, Rome.
The FSSP priests would never affirm the exclusivist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and would use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So their Latin Mass with the New Theology created by the false premise, was not really the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century with its exclusivist interpretation of EENS.
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
http://roma.fssp.it/parrocchia/
JULY 1, 2021
Bishop Minnerath takes advantage of the laity's lack of knowledge of theology
Hearing remarks of this nature from the crowd, as well as remarks about canon law, Minnerath asked, “Have you studied theology of any kind? Do you know more about this than I do? So please, do stop … Canon law, I know what that is. If you want to use petty arguments, if you want to continue to be led by the discourse of the fraternity that has a problem … ” -Bishop Roland Minnerath
BISHOP MINNERATH TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE LAITY'S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Bishop Minnerath was taking advantage of the laity in Dijon's lack of knowledge of theology and his theological errors.
The laity in France must note that Bishop Roland Minneraths books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology, Concordats etc are obsolete since he used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, to create a fake rupture with Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, on ecumenism, liberalism, other religions, non separation of Church and State etc.
BISHOP MINNERATH INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND THE LAITY DO NOT KNOW THIS.
He has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion instead of the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the approach by Lionel Andrades.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic for me, it is in harmony with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) but the Council is a rupture with EENS for the bishop.This should be expected, since he uses the common false premise,to create the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. This is not known to the laity and also the FSSP.
The laity and the FSSP must know that there are 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.
THERE CAN BE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE LAITY DON'T KNOW THIS
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
So why should the Catholics in Dijon, choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
BISHOP MINNERATH MUST NOT CITE VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED WITH A FALSE PREMISE TO REJECT TRADITIONThis is the theology that the laity must know and then talk to the bishop about it.
Ask him not to cite Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise, to justify his liberalism.
BISHOP MINNERATH MUST AFFIRM THE ATHANASIUS CREED IN PUBLICAsk him to affirm the Athanasius Creed in public.It says all need Catholic faith for salvation. It is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, without the false premise.So he can affirm Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed in public.-Lionel AndradesFrench bishop tells faithful protesting departure of FSSP from their diocese that their priests must concelebrate the Novus Ordo https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-bishops-tells-faithful-protesting-departure-of-fssp-from-their-diocese-that-their-priests-must-concelebrate-the-novus-ordo
______________________
JUNE 26, 2021
The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion- - Lionel Andrades
UNE 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?
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 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
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/there-is-no-denial-from-congregation.html
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@gmail.com
___________________
Hearing remarks of this nature from the crowd, as well as remarks about canon law, Minnerath asked, “Have you studied theology of any kind? Do you know more about this than I do? So please, do stop … Canon law, I know what that is. If you want to use petty arguments, if you want to continue to be led by the discourse of the fraternity that has a problem … ” -Bishop Roland Minnerath
BISHOP MINNERATH TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE LAITY'S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Bishop Minnerath was taking advantage of the laity in Dijon's lack of knowledge of theology and his theological errors.
The laity in France must note that Bishop Roland Minneraths books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology, Concordats etc are obsolete since he used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, to create a fake rupture with Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, on ecumenism, liberalism, other religions, non separation of Church and State etc.
BISHOP MINNERATH INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND THE LAITY DO NOT KNOW THIS.
He has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion instead of the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the approach by Lionel Andrades.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic for me, it is in harmony with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) but the Council is a rupture with EENS for the bishop.This should be expected, since he uses the common false premise,to create the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. This is not known to the laity and also the FSSP.
The laity and the FSSP must know that there are 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.
THERE CAN BE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE LAITY DON'T KNOW THIS
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
So why should the Catholics in Dijon, choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
This is the theology that the laity must know and then talk to the bishop about it.
Ask him not to cite Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise, to justify his liberalism.
French bishop tells faithful protesting departure of FSSP from their diocese that their priests must concelebrate the Novus Ordo https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-bishops-tells-faithful-protesting-departure-of-fssp-from-their-diocese-that-their-priests-must-concelebrate-the-novus-ordo
______________________
JUNE 26, 2021
The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion- - Lionel Andrades
UNE 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?
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 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
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/there-is-no-denial-from-congregation.html
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@gmail.com
___________________
JULY 1, 2021
Pope Francis and Bishop Roland Minnerath create division in Dijon with the New Theology which the FSSP will have to accept of offer Holy Mass in French
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/laity-protest-latin-mass-hating-archbishop
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
Interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and Lionel Andrades
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.
This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
Interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and Lionel Andrades
JULY 1, 2021
Pope Francis and Bishop Roland Minnerath create division in Dijon with the New Theology which the FSSP will have to accept of offer Holy Mass in French
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/laity-protest-latin-mass-hating-archbishop
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.
This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
Interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and Lionel Andrades
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/laity-protest-latin-mass-hating-archbishopINTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
JUNE 29, 2021
In Dijon, France Catholics do not have unity on the First Commandment, the Creeds, Catechisms, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II and Bishop Roland Minnerath is allowed to offer Holy Mass. The laity could ask the bishop and the fssp priests, religious communities and parishiones, to interpret Vatican Council Ii and Magisterial documents without the fake premise and instead to use the rational premise
INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment