I can cite Vatican Council II to support my traditional view.They can only cite the Council with an irrationality

 I have to repeat that what I write here is the teaching of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II and not a personal view.It is a personal interpretation of Magisterial documents in harmony with Tradition. It is not the interpretation of the leftist, secular media. It is also not the interpretation of Pope Benedict and Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.My interpretation is based upon the text of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally.Their interpretation is based upon a false premise and inference and so their conclusion is non traditional.

So I can cite Vatican Council II to supporte my traditional view.They can only cite the Council with an irrationality.-Lionel Andrades

I am affirming Magisterial documents but I am not using the false premise like the liberals, Lefebvrists and Thucs

 Please understand that I am affirming all the teachings of the Catholic Church  and am interpreting Salvation Theology traditionally i.e I am not using an irrational premise and inference like the popes and cardinals.

I am affirming Magisterial documents but I am not using the false premise like the liberals, Lefebvrists and Thucs. -Lionel Andrades

If you are an adult Catholic you will have to de-condition yourself from you have been taught to understand me

 If you are an adult Catholic you will have to de-condition yourself from you have been taught.Then you could understand me.Then you will see that from the Parish Priest to the present two popes, they have all made a mistake.You are probably interpreting references to hypothetical cases as not being hypothetical.Then you are interpreting Church documents with this irrationality.

So you have been conditioned to think that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc in Vatican Council II are a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is a false reasoning.

Similarly you could have been conditioned to think that the baptism of desire refers to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church. This too is irrational.-Lionel Andrades

Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (Updated)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.-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.

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

___________________

Pope Francis needs to announce that there are no known cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in 1965-2021.Every thing else will then fall in place

 Pope Francis needs to announce that there are no known cases of non Catholics saved  with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in 1965-2021.Every thing else will then fall in place. -Lionel Andrades

Il PECCATO… Natura e Conseguenza – don Attilio Negrisolo – 3 Piccoli Passi

Lega Bologna could appeal to Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, archbishop of Bologna, Italy and Prof. Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise. Salvini and Fontana must switch to th LA interpretation of Vatican Council II

 

Lega Bologna could appeal to Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, archbishop of Bologna, Italy and Prof. Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School to interpret Vatican  Council II without the false premise. Salvini and Fontana must switch to the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades

Polish Catholics will lose their identity unless they use the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II then there will be no confusion with EENS or the Athanasius Creed

 Polish Catholics will lose their identity unless they held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), citing the Church Fathers,popes and saints and accept the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as being only hypothetical cases. They need to use the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II then there will be no confusion with EENS or the Athanasius Creed. -Lionel Andrades

5° NON UCCIDERE - Don Ambrogio Villa - 3 Piccoli Passi

Priests are expected to affirm the Athanasius Creed in the parish. Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades is not a rupture with Tradition

Priests are expected to affirm the Athanasius Creed in the parish. Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades is not a rupture with the Creeds.

Priests are allowed to not affirm the Athanasius Creed in public and offer Holy Mass ?

The Catechesis in the parish is not Magisterial when the priests cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed in public.They also choose to reject the Athanasius Creed when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.

We now have the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II which does not employ the false premise. It interprets the Council with the rational premise, inference and conclusion. So there is no rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

So the Parish Priest is expected to affirm the Athanasius Creed.He can no more say that it is contradicted with Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

 MAY 27, 2021

Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ( Updated )

 

Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II (Updated)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.

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.-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.

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

__________________________________

MAY 27, 2021

In the parish in which I live the priests are not proclaiming the Faith for political reasons

In the parish in which I live the priests are not proclaiming the Faith for political reasons.They are letting the people remain in ignorance.They will say that 'Jesus died for the salvation of all' and leave it at that.They will not continue and say that 'all must accept Jesus in the Catholic Church with faith and baptism, for salvation ( to avoid Hell )'.They are not permitted by the Rome Vicariate and the Vatican to 1) affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and 2)to speak about Hell.So they do not proclaim the Gospel on this subject.They also do not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.So they are not affirming the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.They are unable to affirm the Creed in public. -Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-parish-in-which-i-live-priests-are.html

Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?

 

THE COUNCIL AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD - PART X - by Don Pietro Leone : THE CHURCH AND THE NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-part-x.html

Don Pietro Leone writing on Vatican Council II and other religions on the web blog Rorate Caeili cites Unitatis Redintigratio,the Decree on Ecumenism, as if they are non hypothetical and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 1965-2021.This is an error in reasoning. His premise is false. So his conclusion has to be non traditional.

A.     Ecumenism in Theory

 

 

Here we consider the ecclesiological status that the Council accords to non-Catholic Christians.

 

     i) ‘…many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Catholic Church’s] visible confines.’ (Lumen Gentium 8);

 

    ii) ‘all that have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ.’(Unitatis Redintegratio 3);

 

    iii) ‘… very many… elements… which go to build up and give life to the church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity; with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.’ (ibid);

 

    iv) ‘… the separated churches and  communities as such… have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery if salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation…’ (UR 3);

 

    v) [The non-Catholics are]‘brothers and sisters’ … in… ‘imperfect communion with the Catholic Church’… ‘separated brothers and sisters’ (UR 3); 

 

    vi) Amongst the non-Catholic Christians there is ‘a true union in the Holy Spirit’… ‘and He has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood’ (LG 15).

For me the theoretical and speculative lines above (in green) from Unitatis Redintigratio 3 or Lumen Gentium 8 and 15 which he has quoted was a weak attempt by some of the Council Fathers, to eliminate the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

Why does Leone still have to interpret Vatican Council II with the confusion of the liberals and Lefebvrists ?

So what if Yves Congar and the others were present at Vatican Council II ? If UR 3 and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases in our reality, then they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

But for Leone they are exceptions.Since he has confused UR 3, LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Real people saved without faith and baptism and who are known to us.This is irrational. There are no such known people. If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.Yet for Leone Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.

Why don’t the Lefebvrists, like Leone, affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and not the liberal version, which projects UR 3,LG 8 as being practical exceptions to Tradition in general and exclusive salvation in particular ?.

There are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church n 1965-2021 and so there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any mentioned in Vatican Council II, unless of course a false premise continues to be employed.

Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?

Rorate Caeili and Don Leone are really promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They please the Masons who want the Council to be interpreted as a rupture with Catholic Tradition.It is as if Rorate Caeili has to interpet UR 3 as a rupture with an ecumenism of return or the retired Jewish Left profesor at the Angelicum, Rome, will object once again.

The big names at Vatican Council II, who thought they could get rid of the dogma EENS, by employing the error in the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949, which was overlooked by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII,did not know that there was a built in error.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to objective cases in our time and space.So they never ever were exceptions to EENS or the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades