Archbishop Carlo Vigano says Vatican Council II should be rejected , this is understandable, since the heretical, schismatic and non traditional conclusion is not Magisterial.But he and the Lefebvrists avoid interpreting the Council without the fake premise.This would make them extremists for the Left

 Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise and say that the Council is valid. 

Rahner, Ratzinger and Congar also interpreted  the Council with a false premise to create an artificial rupture with Tradition,and held that the Council was valid.They made de fide teachings of the Church obsolete.

I interpret the Council with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and believe that the Council  is valid-even though the Council Fathers made an objective mistake, with the fake premise.This interpretation, one of two, is not Magisterial.

But even with the original mistake of the Council Fathers,the Council can be re-interpreted rationally and the conclusion is Magisterial.There is no rupture with Tradition. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyite Syllabus of Errors and Feeneyite Athanasius Creed.The interpretation of the Church documents is Cushingite for most people, since they use the false premise.

So for those who use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, like Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery or the sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Bishop Mark Pivarunas, the Council cannot be dogmatic, as it is dogmatic for me.

When Archbishop Carlo Vigano says Vatican Council II should be rejected , this is understandable, since the heretical, schismatic and non traditional conclusion must be rejected.It is not Magisterial.But he and the Lefebvrists avoid interpreting the Council without the fake premise.This would make them extremists for the Left. -Lionel Andrades

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/in-new-interview-abp-vigano-discusses-failure-of-vatican-ii-novus-ordo-mass?utm_source=editor_picks&utm_campaign=standard

JUNE 9, 2021

All the books on Vatican Council II in general written by pro-SSPX authors are written with a false premise and need to be phased out

All the books on Vatican Council II written by pro- SSPX authors, are written with a false premise. They need to be phased out.The books could have been written without the false premise and inference and then the conclusion would have been traditional.

Future books can be written on Vatican Council II interpreted with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.There will be a hermeneutic of continuity with the past.

The pro- SSPX books on Vatican Council II which are contaminated with this error include those by authors Christina Siccardi, Paulo Pasqualucci, Roberto dei Mattei, Diana Montagna, Maria Guarini and Enrico M.Radaeilli.

There have been hundreds of thousands of books worldwide on Vatican Council II, which were written with an irrational premise to produce a fake non traditional conclusion.This could have been avoided if the authors were informed about the mistake and avoided it.

The official interpretation of Vatican Council II is non Magisterial since its theological foundation is based upon an objective and empirical error which could have been avoided.The Holy Spirit cannot make a factual error and contradict the past Magisterium. There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church.

With the fake or rational premise, the understanding of Vatican Council II changes, in the Church.-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 15, 2021

Paulo Pasqualucci has not been informed about the interpretation of Vatican Council II with a rational premise

 Repost 

APRIL 15, 2018

Six of Pasqualucci's 'distinct points of rupture with the Tradition of the Church in the texts of the Vatican II documents' are not a rupture

From the blog 1Peter5
Today, we present an analysis by Paolo Pasqualucci, a Catholic philosopher and retired professor of philosophy of the law at the University of Perugia, Italy. Pasqualucci identifies, in this adaptation of the introduction to his book Unam Sanctam – A Study on Doctrinal Deviations in the Catholic Church of the 21st Century, 26 distinct points of rupture with the Tradition of the Church in the texts of the Vatican II documents themselves.-

“Points of Rupture” of the Second Vatican Council with the Tradition of the Church – A Synopsis (Blog 1Peter5)

https://onepeterfive.com/the-points-of-rupture-of-the-second-vatican-council-with-the-tradition-of-the-church-a-synopsis/

Six of Pasqualucci's 'distinct points of rupture with the Tradition of the Church in the texts of the Vatican II documents' are not a rupture.1 The other points are open to interpretation and traditionalists do not agree among themselves.

But the six points are clear objective errors of Pasqualucci, Amerio and Gheradini. It is the same error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II made by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Bernard Fellay and the other SSPX bishops, Christopher Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei and the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari.-Lionel Andrades

APRIL 15, 2018

The interpretation of Paolo Pasqualucci, Romano Amerio and Msgr. Brunero Gherardini is irrational it can be seen in the text of the blog 1Peter5 : They misinterpreted hypothetical cases in Lumen Gentium, Unitatitis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate as being objective people saved outside the Church.This was a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/the-interpretation-of-paolo-pasqualucci.html

APRIL 14, 2018

This imporant point was overlooked by Paolo Pasqualucci, Romano Amerio and Msgr. Brunero Gherardinihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/this-imporant-point-was-overlooked.html

APRIL 14, 2018

Once this is understood we can always interpret Vatican Council II as affirming an ecumenism of return only

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/once-this-is-understood-we-can-always.html

JUNE 18, 2014

Cristina Siccardi ,Paolo Pasqualucci use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/cristina-siccardi-paolo-pasqualucci-use.html

“Points of Rupture” of the Second Vatican Council with the Tradition of the Church – A Synopsis

https://onepeterfive.com/the-points-of-rupture-of-the-second-vatican-council-with-the-tradition-of-the-church-a-synopsis/

______________________

_________________________

JUNE 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

___________________

JUNE 15, 2021

This is priceless information : the Congregatio for the Doctrine of the Faith will not tell you about it

You can interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and your conclusion will be different.

You can interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)with a false premise and your conclusion will be different.

You can interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the false premise and your conclusion will be different.

You can interpret the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with or without the false premise and your conclusion will be different, irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal.
You can interpret the Athanasius Creed with or without the false premise and it will be the difference between heresy and orthodoxy.
Nicene Creed…-the same.
Apostles Creed…-the same.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Catechism of the Catholic Church…-the same.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) placed in the Denzinger and referenced at Vatican Council II interprets BOD and I.I with the false premise and so its conclusion is a rupture with the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.This is priceless information.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will not tell you about it.
The LOHO uses a false premise to create a New Theology and liberals and conservatives unknowingly go along with it.-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 10, 2021

Cardinals Kasper and Koch interpret Unitatis Redintigratio, Vatican Council II, with a false premise in support of the New Ecumenism : why should the whole Church follow them ?

Cardinals Kasper and Koch interpret Unitatis Redintigratio in the Second Vatican Council as a support for the New Ecumenism. Why should the whole Church follow them?

On the blog Rorate Caeili, Don Pietro Leone wrote on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). He quotes Unitatis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, to contradict the EENS dogma and support a New Ecumenism. For him Unitatis Redintigratio (UR) has exceptions for EENS. It contradicts an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church. There is therefore a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition,for him.

For me, UR refers only to hypothetical and speculative cases.They exist only in our mind. It would be irrational to consider them objective and practical examples, of being saved outside the Church. So for me they are not exceptions to EENS.

 Unitatis Redintigratio, the Decree on Ecumenism,is not a break with Tradition. I interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

Why should Catholics interpret Unitatis Redintigratio with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of continuity, with Tradition?

Why cannot citations from Unitatis Redintigratio simply refer to hypothetical cases and therefore do not contradict EENS in 2021? I can choose to consider Unitatis Redintigratio as not being in conflict with the traditional, strict interpretation of EENS. Other Catholics can do the same.

Similarly Louie Verrecchio on his blog, chooses to interpret UR as a break with the past ecumenism. I pointed this out to him. It's irrational, but he keeps doing the same thing. This is modernism. He uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II etc and so the conclusion is non traditional.

UR 3 for example can only be hypothetical. There is no other choice. If someone is saved in another religion, without the Catholic faith and water- baptism, he would be known only to God.

Cardinals Kasper and Koch also interpret Unitatis Redintigratio as a support for the New Ecumenism. Why should the whole Church follow them? They are irrational. It is dishonest to cite theoretical cases, referred to in UR, as practical exceptions to the EENS, in 1965-2021. There is really no new theology supporting the New Ecumenism or the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger or 'the development of doctrine', as Pope Benedict and Francis call it.

Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise cannot be a new revelation. It cannot also be a new ecumenism. It's simple dishonesty.-Lionel Andrades

__________________________

JUNE 12, 2021

Kwasniewski needs to write another book to be published by Amazon...so he is being prudent and dishonest

 Peter Kwasniewki did not tell the truth to the seminarian who wants to leave the seminary because of the in coherence he sees all around him.He did not tell the seminarian that Vatican Council II is dogmatic on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and there is a continuity with the past teachings of the Catholic Church.Instead he told the seminarian that the traditional teachings of the Church ended on the eve of Vatican Council II.

Kwasniewski needs to write another book  to be published by Amazon...so he is being prudent and dishonest. -Lionel Andrades

JUNE 8, 2021

Peter Kwasniewski misguided the seminarian on Vatican Council II

 

Peter Kwasniewski on the blog 1Peter5 tells a seminarian who wants to be coherent  that the continuity of the Church's teachings ended on the eve of Vatican Council II.Kwasniewski did not want to be accused of being a Feeneyite and be further de-platformed. So he misguided the seminarian. - Lionel Andrades

https://onepeterfive.com/a-reply-to-the-discouraged-seminarian-there-are-6000-reasons-to-remain-catholic/

 MAY 31, 2021

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II the great Catholic Tradition does not stop on the eve of Vatican Council II

 

Peter Kwasniewski writes on the blog 1Peter5

If someone were to ask me “Why be a Catholic?,” I would reply: The theology of the Church in its apostolic, patristic, and scholastic plenitude, a grand oak tree birthed from a tiny acorn, showing in its mighty trunk and vast crown the power of the principles at root. As John Henry Newman saw and described so well in writing the work that accompanied his entry into the Roman Church, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the truth unfolds in strength and stability across the ages of faith. Whether we take up the formidable Summa theologiae of St Thomas Aquinas with its seried ranks of syllogisms or simply consult any standard catechism from the Counter-Reformation down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council, we will find one and the same Catholic Faith, always confessing the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the perfect humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, the virginal maternity of Mary, the veneration of the saints, the life of grace, virtues, prayer, worship, and sacraments, the promise of eternal life in the bliss of the beatific vision.-from A Reply to the Discouraged Seminarian

https://onepeterfive.com/a-reply-to-the-discouraged-seminarian-there-are-6000-reasons-to-remain-catholic/

'down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council'.
Down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council II ? Why did Peter Kwasniewski have to stop here.
Why? Since he is using the narrative of the progressivists and the Lefebvrists.
Kwasniewski, as he puts it in the article, 'allows the enemy to dictate the terms of the entire debate'. He interprets the Council like the Modernists.

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II the great Catholic Tradition does not stop on the eve of Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

https://onepeterfive.com/a-reply-to-the-discouraged-seminarian-there-are-6000-reasons-to-remain-catholic/

__________________________