OCTOBER 23, 2021
Vatican Council II by Bishop Roland Minnerath and 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
NOVEMBER 13, 2021
At the Coetus Patrem International Discussion on Vatican Council II yesterday none of the speakers said that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode chose the irrational one
At the Coetus Patrem International Discussion on Vatican Council II yesterday none of the speakers said that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode chose the irrational one.
Also none of them said that in Dijone, France,
Bishop Roland Minnerath continues to interpret
Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise.He does not choose the Rational Premise which would make him a traditionalist like the Ecclesia Dei communities.
It would be the same for the American bishops.
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 for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentioins of the very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Pietro et sub Pietro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysisi, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church - Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode.
Recently Archbishop Arthur Roche, Prefect of Congregation for Divine Worship said that the the Latin Mass clashed with the New Magisterium, which came from Vatican Council II. He meant the Council interpreted with the False Premise.
But with the Rational Premise there is harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the ecclesiology of the Church is exclusivist before and after Vatican Council II.
Pope Francis needs to also inform Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School in Italy, to interpret Vatican Council II ethically.
Similarly the New Evangelisation of Cardinal Ragle and Bishop Robert Barron must be based upon Vatican Council II, Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
All this was missing in the discussion whose participants are still stuck in 1965 and those times.
Pope Benedict was not told that all his books on Vatican Council II, Ecclesiology etc, carry the Cushingite germ.There is an epidemic in the Church and the official heresy and schism has to be controlled.The virus is also there among the traditionalist and conservative Catholics.
Bishop Robert Barron and Massimo Faggioli among
others wrote books on Vatican Council II
interpreted with the Fake Premise and not the
Rational Premise.The error needs to be
acknowledged.Instead, one of the participants in
the discussion Robert Fastiggi, indicated that he will continue to write books, articles and teach Catholic theology with the Irrational Premise, False Inference and Non Traditional Conclusion. -Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 17, 2019
Operation Dustbin
OCTOBER 24, 2021
Q & A : What is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. In brief can you tell us what is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
A. I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as always referring to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2021. So there are no objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed ( all need the Catholic faith for salvation).There are none mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.Neither are there any known, practical exceptions.
I accept the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as being hypothetical cases. I do not reject them.But I do not project them as being practical exceptions to EENS. It was the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which made an objective mistake.
So there are two interpretations of the Council today. One with the common False Premise and the other, mine, with the Ratioinal Premise. Their conclusion is non traditional, heretical, schismatic and divisive. Mine is in harmony with the past Magisterium.It has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. So Catholics today have an option.-Lionel Andrades
HTTPS://EUCHARISTANDMISSION.BLOGSPOT.COM/2021/10/Q-WHAT-IS-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-YOUR.HTML
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/11/at-coetus-patrem-international.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment