Domande e risposte sull'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II

 

JUNE 2, 2021

Domande e risposte sull'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II

 L’interpretazione di Concilio Vaticano II di Lionel Andrades e razionale, non eretici, non scismatici e tradizionale.

1.Cosa c'è di speciale nell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II?
Lui non usa la comune premessa falsa. E' un modo semplice, razionale e diverso di leggere il Concilio Vaticano II.

2.Cosa c'è di così speciale nell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades sul extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
Non usa la falsa premessa comune per interpretare il battesimo del desiderio (BOD), l'ignoranza invincibile (I.I) e il battesimo di sangue (BOB). Quindi non ci sono eccezioni pratiche per EENS. EENS è tradizionale e BOD, BOB e I.I sono interpretati razionalmente. Non è EENS o BOB, BOB e II. Poiché questi ultimi non fanno eccezione per i primi.

3.L'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades dei documenti del Magistero è copy right o trade mark?

 No. Chiunque può usarlo. Non c'è nessun addebito. Si tratta semplicemente di tornare all'interpretazione tradizionale dei documenti della Chiesa, senza la falsa premessa. La falsa premessa è entrata nella Chiesa in grande stile, con la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio all'Arcivescovo di Boston relativa a p. Leonard Feeney (1949).

4.Come è emersa l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades di VC 2?
Ha continuato a scrivere sul suo blog(Eucharist and Missiion) su EENS e poi ha scoperto che il Concilio Vaticano II non contraddice realmente l'EENS se si evita la falsa premessa.


5.L'interpretazione di LA sul VC2 è una nuova teologia?
No. È tornare alla vecchia teologia tradizionale della Chiesa Cattolica evitando la falsa premessa. È la falsa premessa che ha creato la Nuova Teologia. Senza la falsa premessa non può esserci il Nuovo Ecumenismo, la Nuova Evangelizzazione, la Nuova Ecclesiologia ecc. La Nuova Teologia è Cristocentrica senza il passato ecclesiocentrismo della Chiesa. Con proiettando una premessa falsa sono state create eccezioni all'EENS, al Credo di Atanasio, al Sillabo degli Errori, ecc.. L'errore è stato trascurato dai papi.

6.Che dire della dottrina missionaria tradizionale del XVI secolo?
Con l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II torniamo alla dottrina tradizionale della Missione. Non è più "solo loro bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa che lo sanno", che “non sono nell'ignoranza invincibile” (LG 14) Invece, è tutto bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa Cattolica senza alcuna eccezione conosciuta. L'ignoranza invincibile non è un'eccezione per tutti coloro che hanno bisogno di entrare nella Chiesa con la fede e il battesimo (LG 14). Quindi evangelizziamo poiché tutti i non cattolici sono orientati all'Inferno, senza la fede e il battesimo d'acqua (Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Concilio Vaticano II). La norma per salvezza è fede e battesimo e non è ignoranza invincibile.Quando incontro un non cattolico, non posso presumere o pretendere di sapere che lui o lei è un'eccezione alla norma.Se c'è un'eccezione potrebbe essere conosciuta solo da Dio. So che il non cattolico prima di me, è orientato all'Inferno ( Credo di Atanasio, Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7, LG 14), Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica (845.846,1257), Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX, ecc.)


7.E l'ermeneutica della continuità o della rottura con la Tradizione?
Con l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II non c'è rottura con i documenti del Magistero del passato e nemmeno si contraddicono. Dobbiamo però reinterpretare i documenti del Magistero del passato, che menzionano il battesimo del desiderio (BOD) e l'ignoranza invincibile (I.I ), come ipotetici e invisibili sempre. L'essere salvati con BOD e I.I sono sempre fisicamente invisibili, quando sono menzionati nei Catechismi (Trento, Pio X ecc.) e nelle encicliche e nei documenti dei papi (Mystici Corporis ecc.). Si riferiscono sempre solo a casi ipotetici e non sono oggettivamente conosciuti non-cattolici. Se qualcuno viene salvato fuori dalla Chiesa può essere conosciuto solo da Dio. Questo deve essere chiaro leggendo anche la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949 all'Arcivescovo di Boston. Non c'è confusione nemmeno nella lettura del testo del Concilio Vaticano II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 ecc, si riferiscono sempre solo a casi ipotetici e quindi non contraddicono il Credo di Atanasio.

8.I papi dovrebbero usare l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II?
SÌ! Poiché attualmente i due papi sono scismatici, eretici, non magisteriali e non tradizionalisti sul Concilio Vaticano II. Dev'essere così poiché usano la falsa premessa. È solo con la falsa premessa, inferenza e conclusione che interpretano i documenti magisteriali. Ciò può essere evitato con una premessa razionale, un'inferenza e una conclusione tradizionale. Il risultato è un'ermeneutica di continuità con la Tradizione.

9.Quale altro vantaggio c'è nel conoscere l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II?
Leggiamo il testo del Concilio Vaticano II in generale in modo diverso con questo interpretazione, di interpretazione di Lionel Andrades.
'Il rosso non è un'eccezione al blu'. I passaggi ipotetici (segnati in rosso sul blog Eucaristia e Missione, non sono eccezioni pratiche ai passaggi ortodossi del Concilio Vaticano II che supportano l'EENS e sono contrassegnati in blu.
Per gli attuali due papi ei tradizionalisti il rosso è un'eccezione al blu. Questo è irrazionale.

10.Che rapporto ha con la liturgia?
Senza la falsa premessa il Concilio Vaticano II è tradizionale. Il Concilio Vaticano II è in armonia con extra ecclesiam nulla salus secondo i missionari del XVI secolo. Siamo quindi tornati all'ecclesiologia ecclesiocentrica passata della Chiesa Cattolica. Quando il Concilio è tradizionale non c'è 'sviluppo della dottrina' o 'spirito del Concilio Vaticano II'. Collegialità, libertà religiosa ed ecumenismo non sono più un problema. Quindi ricevere la Santa Comunione sulla mano non può più essere giustificato con il Concilio Vaticano II. Né l'Eucaristia può essere data ai divorziati risposati, in nome del Concilio.
Né il Sinodo tedesco può essere giustificato citando il Concilio Vaticano II. Non c'è più alcuna base teologica nel Concilio per dare l'Eucaristia ai protestanti durante la Santa Messa.

Premessa falsa
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. nel Concilio Vaticano II si riferiscono a casi fisicamente visibili nel 1965-2021.

Inferenza falsa
Sono esempi oggettivi di salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa.

Conclusione falsa
Il Concilio Vaticano II contraddice l'interpretazione rigorosa del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Sono stati resi osoleti il Credo di Atanasio (fuori dalla Chiesa non c'è salvezza) e il Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX (ecumenismo del ritorno).

Ecco la mia interpretazione del Concilio Vaticano II in blu.

Premessa razionale
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 ecc. nel Concilio Vaticano II si riferiscono a casi fisicamente invisibili nel 1965-2021. Sono solo ipotetici e teorici. Esistono solo nella nostra mente e non sono corpi solidi al livello di tempo, spazio e materia di Newton.

Inferenza razionale
Non sono esempi oggettivi di salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa per noi esseri umani.

Conclusione razionale
Il Concilio Vaticano II non contraddice l'EENS come era interpretato dai Gesuiti nel Medioevo. Non contraddice l'interpretazione rigorosa dell'EENS di San Tommaso d'Aquino (salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile è invisibile), Sant'Agostino e p. Leonard Feeney di Boston.
La Lettera del Sant'Uffizio (Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede) del 1949 ha commesso un errore oggettivo.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/thereis-no-denial-from-congregation.html

Lionel Andrades
Promotore dell'interpretazione di Concilio Vaticano II di Lionel Andrades.
Laico cattolico a Roma,
 Scrittore sulla scoperta delle due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II, l'una razionale e l'altra irrazionale, si interpreta l'una con la falsa premessa e l'altra senza. Uno è Magistrale e l'altro, quello comune, è non Magistrale.
È lo stesso per i Credo ei Catechismi. Ci possono essere due interpretazioni.
Perché i cattolici dovrebbero scegliere una versione irrazionale che è eretica, non tradizionale e scismatica, quando c'è un'opzione razionale che è tradizionale?

 

Blog: Eucharist and Mission

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

____________________

 

 

MAY 26, 2021

 

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

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/questions-and-answers-about-lionel.html

Peter Vere's thesis on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the St. Benedict Centers, USA from a canonical perspective, was based upon his interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)and Vatican Council II with the common false premise.So his conclusion was non traditional.Now after being informed, after so many years, he has no comment

 Peter  Vere's thesis on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the St. Benedict Centers, USA from a canonical perspective, was based upon his interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)and Vatican Council II with the common false premise.So his conclusion was non traditional.Now after being informed, after so many years, he has no comment. -Lionel Andrades

Mr. Vere obtained his Licentiate of Canon Law from the Faculty of Canon Law at Saint Paul University. As a Catholic writer, canonist and apologist, his work has appeared in numerous Catholic publications, including Surprised by Truth 3. He is the co-author of Surprised by Canon Law: 150 Questions Catholics Ask About Canon Law and More Catholic Than the Pope. Additionally, Mr. Vere is the lecturing professor for the Masters-level course in Canon Law offered by the Catholic Distance University.

https://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html

_________________________________________

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

___________________

Rodney Pelletier still writes reports for Church Militant TV in which he interprets the Catechisms and Vatican Council II with the fake premise, as was taught when studying theology

 Rodney Pelletier still writes reports for Church Militant TV in which he interprets the Catechisms and Vatican Council II with the fake premise, as was taught when studying theology. -Lionel Andrades

JUNE 2, 2021

Go back to the Baltimore Catechism ?

We cannot just say, "Let's go back to the Baltimore Catechism".It has to be clarified that when the Baltimore Catechism for example mentions the baptism of desire(BOD), then the BOD, can be intepreteted as a hypothetical or objective case.It is subjective or objective, implicit or explicit.This is how it is being interpreted by Catholics. If the premise is different then the conclusion will be a rupture or continuation with Tradition.It will mean accepting the strict intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus or rejecting it.The conclusion is traditional or non traditional.
If a Catholic can throw away the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), then every thing else can be done away with. So of what good are the Catehisms then ? Of what good are the Catechisms if EENS has exceptions today but not have exceptions in the 16th century?
It has to be clarified that when the Baltimore Catechism refers to the baptism of desire it is only to a hypothetical, subjective, implicit and theoretical case.It exists only in our mind.There is no BOD case in our human reality, at Newton's level of time and space.This is the rational interpretation of BOD.
But for the Americanists this was not true. The baptism of desire was an objective case. It was a practical exception to the traditional strict itnerpetation of EENS. BOD did not exist just in our mind for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So a new doctrine on salvation was created in the Church and there was a new way to read the Catechisms; to read them wrongly.The new doctrine was EENS with exceptions;outside the Church there is salvation.
So when reading the Catechisms(  Baltimore,Trent Pius X,John Paul II etc)it is important to note that the baptsm of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical cases only.
If this is not clarified then all the Catechisms will be confusing and they would contradict itself and each other.
Also Vatican Council II would be at odds with the old Catechisms.LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc would contradict the strict interpretation of EENS when it is mentioned in the Catechisms example 24Q and 27Q in the Catechism of Pope Pius X. - Lionel Andrades

 

 

 

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catechism-question

Adorazione Eucaristica - Convento delle Monache Benedettine

Cardinal Kasper cited Vatican Council II to justify to justify the Amoris Laetitia -innovation and the Society of St.Pius X did not tell him, that the Council was traditional.

 Cardinal Kasper cited Vatican Council II to justify to justify the Amoris Laetitia -innovation and the Society of St.Pius X did not tell him, that the Council was traditional.

Pope Francis cited Vatican Council II to justify his Abu Dhabi Statement and conservative Catholics did not tell him that the Council is traditinal, if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are interpreted rationally.-Lionel Andrades

MAY 18, 2021

Why should Catholics choose the progressivist and Lefebvrist interpretation of Vatican Council II with a false premise instead of mine without the fake premise ?

 

Why should Catholics choose the progressivist and Lefebvrist interpretation of Vatican Council II with a false premise instead of mine without the fake premise ? For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical.For the liberals and the traditionalists they are not always hypothetical.Since for them LG 8 etc are practical exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). They are not Feeneyites on EENS.They make the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( ecumenism of return into the Catholic Church) obsolete.Liberals and trads make them obsolete with the false premise which creates practical exceptions for EENS.So Cardinal Kasper and Bishop Barron support Vatican Council II with the false premise ( invisible and hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 16 etc are objective and practical exceptions to EENS).Similarly for Taylor Marshall and Peter Kwasniewski, LG 8, LG 15 etc are objective exceptions for EENS and so they reject this version of Vatican Council II.Both groups use the same fake premise. One group accepts the non traditional conclusion and the other rejects it.

Both groups produce the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.I avoid it.

So choose my interpretation of Vatican Council II.It is rational, non heretical, non schismatic, without a rupture with Tradition and Magisterial since it is in harmony with the past Magisterium, the popes and saints of the past.

When the present two popes choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the fake premise then they too will be Magisterial on the Council.So choose Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades on the blog Eucharistandmission.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-choose.html

MAY 17, 2021

In what way are you different from every one else?

 

JANUARY 24, 2020

Questions and Answers

1.In what way are you different from every one else?

I say there are no literal exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.

So I read Vatican Council II differently.

Most Catholics accept  the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO). So the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.So they imply that there are people known in the present times saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) who are in Heaven. They would have to be visible and known, for them to examples of salvation outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.

But we know that there are no such people seen on earth and if they existed in Heaven, they would only be known to God.

We can say a St. Emerentiana is a saint but no one on earth could have seen her without the baptism of water, or at least this is not a general capacity among human beings.No one can say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.

The Church does not recognize, any one one on earth having the gift to see St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.

So I see BOD, BOB and I.I as just being possibilities.They exist only in our mind and are not real people whom we know.

So the Council Fathers made a mistake. They should not have mentioned BOD and I.I along with  the text which says all need  faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).

This is an in-principle error in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers assumed hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were practical exceptions  to Feeneyite EENS. This was an objective mistake.

We can still read Vatican Council II however, without confusing what is invisible as being visible , implicit as explicit, subjective as objective.This is what I do.So my interpretation of the Council is different. There are only orthodox  passages for me. The unorthodox  passages are always hypothetical. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages .

When others read the text of Vatican Council II, there are orthodox  and unorthodox passages which contradict them. This is what they wrongly assume.They refer to personally known and physically visible non Catholics, saved outside the Church. So this is a false premise and the inference is also wrong.

2. Who taught you this?

No one. I  stumbled upon it and then got confirmations from many people. Some seemed to know about it but did not want to talk about it in public.

3. Are you saying that all the popes from Paul VI were wrong on Vatican Council II ?
Yes. They did not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise and in harmony with the past ecclesiology..

4. Are you saying the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) made a theological mistake in 1949?

Yes since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston assumes unknown people are known exceptions to EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the professors of Boston College who were members of the St. Benedict Center.

This is an objective error. Yet the LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II and placed in the Denzinger.

5.Are you saying all the books on Vatican Council II are wrong?

Yes in general, since they interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc  as being exceptions to EENS. So they imply that there are practical exceptions when there are none.

New books can be written which re-interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise . So the Council would be in harmony with the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and 16th century EENS.

6.You do no reject Vatican Council II ?

No. I do not have to reject the Council. I re-interpret Vatican Council II rationally and then accept the traditional conclusion.

7.Do you have a problem with the German bishops ?

Personally no, I do not know any of them in particular. However if they interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, the Creeds and Catechisms  with a false premise and inference, even after being informed, it would not be Catholic.

8.Who supports you ?

It is common knowledge that there are no  visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.It is  the same for LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc. This is common sense.So people in general support me. Every one supports me on this point, which is central to what I have to say.Even the professors of theology, who teach political nonsense at the universities, agree with me and say there are no physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 in the present times.

9.Are you presenting a new theology?

No. I am only pointing out that there are no objective exceptions of a non Catholc  saved outside the Church. So when the New Theology is based upon this error, it is flawed.There cannot be a New Theology which says  outside the Church there is salvation. 
We are back to outside the Church there is no salvation supported by Vatican Council II ( AG 7).

10.Are you saying all the books on Vatican Council by the Oxford University Press, Ignatius Press, Liturgical Press etc are obsolete?

Yes. Also the articles and books written by Pope Benedict are in error. The same mistake is made by traditionalist and sedevacantist  authors.

11.The professors at secular and pontifical universities have to change their curriculum?

Yes. There is no theological basis for the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law, New Ecclesiology . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church. There are no known exceptions to EENS according to theVatican Council II.

Generally the professors are teaching error in theology.

12.How can you be correct and every one else be wrong ?

I keep saying invisible people are not visible in the present times.Every one agress with  me here.

However the new theology of the popes since Paul VI, and that of the cardinals, bishops and professors at the universities, is based upon the philosophical principle that invisible people, saved outside the Church, are physically visible in 1965-2020.They assume these 'known and visible people' are practical examples of salvation outside the Church and so are exceptions to the     ecclesiocentric eclesiology of the Church.This is obviously false. -Lionel Andrades

Rorate Caeili and Don Pietro Leone choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then they reject the non traditional conclusion,even after being informed.

 Rorate Caeili and Don Pietro Leone choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then they reject the non traditional conclusion,even after being informed.They do not choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc rationally and then affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara, Taylor Marshall and Peter Kwasniewski. -Lionel Andrades

JUNE 1, 2021

Don Pietro Leone's reports on Vatican Council II posted by Rorate Caeili please the Left

It is as if the weblog Rorate Caeli promotes Don Pietro Leone's reports on Vatican Council II because they are a rupture with Tradition(EENS) to show the liberals and the Left that he is one of them. If Vatican Council II was interpreted without the fake premise and in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, they would object.Now they appreciate the posts on Rorate Caeili showing, as the liberal popes believed,that the Council is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Today so many Catholics still wrongly believe that the Council is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

For the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center, Stll River, MA, USA, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.So they have negated Feeneyite EENS; EENS with no known exceptions, and so have been granted canonical recognition by Bishop Robert McMmanus in the diocese of Worcester, USA.They interpret the Council with the fake premise, like all the religious communities in the diocese. So the common liberalism in the diocese of Worcester comes with the fake premise.It does not depend upon the liturgy.-Lionel Andrades

MAY 30, 2021

Rorate Caeili/Don Pietro Leone are actually promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc with the false premise instead of without it. Of course the conclusion has to be non traditional and they know it

 Rorate Caeili/Don Pietro Leone are actually promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc with the false premise instead of without it. Of course the conclusion has to be non traditional and they know it. -Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/rorate-caeilidon-pietro-leone-are.html

__________________________________

MAY 28, 2021

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

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-should-catholics-use-false-premise.html

_________________________________________