When I say that Catechists should teach that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics I am following the theology of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally

 When I say that Catechists should teach that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics I am following the theology of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally.There cannot be a New Theology with a false premise.It could not be Magisterial. There cannot be a development of doctrine with a false premise.It cannot be Magisterial. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston cannot be Magisterial. It uses a false premise. - Lionel Andrades

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

___________________

LONGANIMITY (1/14): Meditations on the Holy Spirit

The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School is not Magisterial even if Pope Francis supports it.Since Melloni, like the popes since Paul VI, uses a false premise to interpret the Council.In this way a fake rupture is created with Tradition.

The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School is not Magisterial even if Pope Francis supports it.Since Melloni, like the popes since Paul VI, uses a false premise to interpret the Council.In this way a fake rupture is created with Tradition. If they did not use the false premise then there would be no rupture with the traditional teaching on the their being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church (EENS etc).

Similarly Cardinal Matteo Zuppi's interpretation of Vatican Council II, as Archbishop of Bologna,is politically correct with the Left but it is not Magisterial.Without the use of the false premise, there is no theological possibility for a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc. For Vatican Council II to be Magisterial it needs to be in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Church and the rational premise must be used to interpret the Council.-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 8, 2021

Repost : The political parties in Italy are not opposing the Italian government. They hand out a million euros this year to Alberto Melloni's Bologna School.He uses a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II

 

APRIL 26, 2021

The political parties in Italy are not opposing the Italian government. They hand out a million euros this year to Alberto Melloni's Bologna School.He uses a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II

 

The political parties in Italy are not opposing the Italian government. They hand out a million euros this year  to Alberto Melloni's Bologna School.

He uses a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So he creates a false rupture with the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church there is no salvation), extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441), Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return for Protestants etc) and the rest of Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

APRIL 23, 2021

John XXIII Foundation for Religious Sciences (FSCIRE), the "Bologna School receives a million euros annually from the Italian government since it uses a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II

 

John XXIII Foundation for Religious Sciences (FSCIRE), the "Bologna School whose secretary is Alberto Melloni and President Alessandro Panjo, annually receives a million euros from the present Leftist Italian government it has been reported. Since they unethically interpret the Council with a false premise instead of the rational alternative they are eligible for the funds.

With the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no  rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( ecumenism of return) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X( 24 Q,27Q-other religions are not paths to salvation and their members need to convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water(AG 7) to avoid Hell).However with the rational premise Alberto Melloni would not be able to receive funds from the Government.Since the Council would be politically incorrect with the Left.

The FSCIRE  has Alberigo School for Advanced Religious Studies which interprets the Council with the fake premise and so suggests that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The FSCIRE also has the Andreatta College was acquired by the University of Bologna and subsequently loaned to the Foundation until 2049 .In  2012 the Communist President of Italy  Giorgio Napolitano renamed the  College .The College guarantees world-class facilities to scholars from Italy and around the world.The College  accommodates doctoral and post-doctoral students as well as visiting scholars from European institutes of higher learning according to the FSCIRE website.

The activities of this institution are controversial since they provide false information to the students on Vatican Council II and support a political and non Magisterial interpretation of the Council.

Their Scientific Committee would be aware that it is false to project a false premise to create a non real inference at Newton's level of physics and then conclude that there are objective to the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the 16th century.

It is like based on the false Peking Man, that Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ  developed his theory on evolution and re-incarnation.

Inspite of the discovery of the fraud New Age and Leftist groups are still promoting Chardin.

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://www.fscire.it/index.php/en/who-we-are/board-of-trustees/

https://www.fscire.it/index.php/en/alberigo-school-for-advanced-religious-studies/

https://www.fscire.it/index.php/en/andreatta-college/

https://www.fscire.it/index.php/en/who-we-are/scientific-committee/

_______________________

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

___________________

Peter Kwasniewki and Brian McCall still interpret Magisterial documents with a false premise and this is a dis-service to the websites Whispers of Restoration and Catholic Family News

  

Peter Kwasniewki and Brian McCall still interpret Magisterial documents with a false premise and this is a dis-service to the websites Whispers of Restoration and Catholic Family News. - Lionel Andrades

JUNE 29, 2018

Catholic Family News uses Cushingism which is heretical ,irrational and non traditional. It is supported by the liberals, the Vatican and the Left and is a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church

I use the Cushingism-Feeneyism approach.

I say the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( I.I) can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism and one approach is traditional, rational and non heretical.

So BOD,BOB and I.I interpreted with Feeenyism is not a rupture with the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).

It would be a rupture with EENS ( Cushingite).Matt Gaspers affirms EENS(Cushingite).

Likewise BOD, BOB and I.I ( Feeneyite) would be in harmony with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and be a rupture with Vatican Council II (Cushingite).For Matt Gaspers and the CFN there is only Vatican Council II (Cushingite).

Since BOD, BOB and I.I are Feeneyite, the Catechisms which mention them are not a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite) and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.Invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be objective exceptions to traditional EENS.

Likewise there is no change in the Nicene Creed which still means' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, one known baptism which is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.It is not "I believe in three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water, and they are visible in the flesh cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance."This would be irrational since there are no such cases in our reality.

So for me Vatican Council II is in harmony with the dogma EENS as it was known to the Magisterium in the 16th century. For Pope Benedict it is a rupture(Avvenire,March 2016).

For me EENs ( Feeneyite) is in harmony with EENS as it was interpreted in the 16th century. For Pope Benedict and CFN there is a rupture.Cushingism causes the rupture.

For me the Catechism (Trent, Pius X,Baltimore etc) are in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, as for example in the 16th century. For the CFN, the SSPX, the sedevacantists and the present two popes there is a rupture. This is schism with the past popes. They would also be in heresy according to the Magisterium of the 16th century.The present magisterium would also be in heresy according to the past Magisterium.

So with my interpretation there is coherence.I do not reject EENS (Feeneyite) like CFN and Pope Benedict.I can affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and continue to reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite) like the SSPX and the sedevacantists.I too reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite) since it is a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus etc).

So I am affirming traditional EENS ( unlike the CFN), Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) unlike the CFN, the Catechisms in harmony with the past ecclesiology( unlike the CFN), the Nicene Creed ( traditional), Mission based on knowing most people are oriented to Hell since they die outside the Church, the Old Ecumenism since outside the Church 

there is no known salvation...

So I reject the CFN doctrinel positon which is heretical, irrational and non traditional.

I understand that the CFN may not agree. They  would believe they are correct since the popes and saints mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I and so has the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was approved by Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre and then the same theology( BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions to EENS) was approved at Vatican Council II.

So for them the dogma EENS(Feeneyite) has become obsolete.They also believe Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are Magisterial.Like the liberals they do not make the Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction and do not define their terms.

-Lionel Andrades

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2018

Repost Catholic Family News uses wrong premise : mistake of John Vennari with Cushingite, New Theology

AUGUST 22, 2012

CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS USES WRONG PREMISE

On the Catholic Family News website there are a few articles critical of Vatican Council II (1)  because the writer used the premise of Richard Cushing i.e those who are saved in invincible ignorance who have not had the Gospel preached to them through no fault of their own and who are now dead are known to us, they are visible to us on earth.

He then chose material from Vatican Council II to justify this error.So much is concluded wrongly abut Vatican Council II because of one small premise.

For John Vennari Vatican Council II says there is salvation outside the Church- So it is a modernist,heretical Council.

For me, without the Cushing error, Vatican Councl II says there is no salvation outside the church.So it is in agreement with tradition.I can cite text from the Council to support my view.

For me being saved with implicit desire/ baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.For John Vennari it is.

So here is the difference between the two interpretations. if John Vennari is aware of the irrationality he can discover the Council  as traditional.

The interpretation of the Council by the liberals is the same as that of John Vennari.They are all using the ‘visible dead’ argument to claim there is salvation outside the church according to Vatican Council II.

Since there is salvation outside the church for them, the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus is contradicted. We then have a modernist Council which the SSPX and John Vennari criticize..

The wrong premise is : those who are saved in invincible ignorance, who have not had the Gospel preached to them through no fault of their own and who are now dead, are known to us, they are visible to us on earth.

The conclusion: there is salvation outside the Church.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

Magnificent Si Si No No Series on

"The Errors of Vatican II"

Seven part series:

Highlights:

• Vatican II's Ambiguous Juridical Nature

• Mutilated concept of the Magisterium

•The contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic "modern thinking."

• Relevant Omissions - at least 8 points the Council should have addressed but failed to...

These are highlights only from Part I. See list for entire Seven part series.

It is important for us to re-study this series, especially when we are confronted with Archbishop Müller and Archbishop DiNoia who try to tell us there are no errors in Vatican II, but only bad interpretation. Time to re-study at a time when ecumenical post-Conciliar Vatican prelates try to convince of a position that is not true!

January 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 50

Errors of Vatican II Part I

March 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 51

Errors of Vatican II Part II
Note on Dominus Jesus

May 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 52

Errors of Vatican II Part III

July 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 53

Errors of Vatican II Part IV

September 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 54

Errors of Vatican II Part V

November 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 55

Errors of Vatican II Part VI

January 2004 Si Si No No Reprint No. 56

Errors of Vatican II Part VII

March 2004 Si Si No No Reprint No. 57

Errors of Vatican II Part VIII

_____________________

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015

John Vennari assumes being saved in invincble ignorance is an exception to the dogma

John Vennari:

Editor’s Note: Because Catholic Family News often publishes articles that emphasize the infallible Catholic doctrine of “outside the Church there is no salvation,” we have sometimes been accused of implicitly denying Venerable Pope Pius IX’s teaching on invincible ignorance.1 In answer, we do not deny Pope Pius IX’s teaching on invincible ignorance.

Lionel:

I have mentioned in an earlier post that being saved in invincible ignorane is not related to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is not an exception to the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma. It is not relevant.

The Good Thief on the Cross or St.Emerentiana cannot be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Since they existed centuries back. Exceptions must exist in the present times. Something or someone can only be an exception today. A possibility can be a possibility only.It cannot be an exception to the dogma today.
Every exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation has to happen today.Otherwise it will not be an exception today.

An exception to the dogma on salvation must happen in the present times, today,living memory, existing time, visible and concrete, March 17,2015, Feast of St.Patrick.

Something that happened in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma on March 17.

Something that will happen in the future cannot be an exception to the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.

Something that happens in Heaven and is known only to God, cannot be an exception on earth to the dogma today;someone in Heaven cannot be an exception o earth, to all needing to convert formally into the Church in March 2015.

So if someone dies in invincible ignorance ( with or without the baptism of water) it would be known only to God. So how could it be an exception or relevant to the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation ?

The message of the dogma is related to today.All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation today.All need to convert today into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.

Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of any exception today.Humanly we cannot know. These persons would be dead and in Heaven.So why does John Vennari have to mention invincible ignorance with reference to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church ?

If  a pope, cardinal or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.The dead -past, present or future- cannot be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church today.

Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing in 1949 did not know of any exceptions.

At Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965) no one there knew of anyone saved without faith and baptism.

When Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were issued neither did Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know of any exceptions to the dogma.

There is no known case of salvation outside the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

So how can the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio and other magisterial documents, over seen by Cardinal Ratzinger, imply that there is salvation outside the Church? Yet they do.

The magisterium has made a factual error and John Vennari has not noticed it.Since he and the SSPX also assume that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

So neither can John Vennari nor the SSPX say that Vatican Council II II affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma with Ad Gentes 7 and there cannot possibly be exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is a common mistake among the SSPX in Italy,too.
-Lionel Andrades

 

The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-two-hermenutics-depend-on-use-or.html

 

There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/there-being-exceptions-is-irrational.html

 

John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/john-vennari-cardinal-kaspar-and-so.html

 

Cardinal Kaspar,John Vennari and Louie Verrecchio make the Council ambigous

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/cardinal-kasparjohn-vennari-and-louie.html

 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/bishop-athanasius-schneider-makes-same.html

John Vennari, Louie Verrecchio repeat the same error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/john-vennari-louie-verrecchio-repeat.html 

More party-line irrationality from Rao,Vennari and others: another politically correct conference http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/more-party-line-irrationality-from.html#links

August 22, 2012

CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS USES WRONG PREMISE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/catholic-family-news-uses-wrong-premise.html

-Lionel Andrades

February 23, 2015

Bishop Fellay uses a false premise when he assumes LG 8 refers to visible in the flesh cases : Doctrine has not changed unless you use a false premise.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/bishop-fellay-uses-false-premise-when.html
______________________

 

SUNDAY, AUGUST 16, 2020

John Vennari did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the false premise and then there would be no rupture with Tradition. Also Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei did not know.Now that the editor of Catholic Family News knows about it he is not going to affirm the Council rationally without the false premise, since Vennari did not do so.

 

John Vennari did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the false premise and then there would be no rupture with Tradition. Also Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei did not know.Now that the editor of Catholic Family News knows about it he is not going to affirm the Council rationally without the false premise, since Vennari did not do so. -Lionel Andrades

______________________

OCTOBER 22, 2020

Like the website Whispers of Restoration the Voice of the Family mentions the Baltimore Catechism without differentiating between Cushingism and Feeneyism.They also interpret all the Catechisms with Cushingism.So they maintain the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition

 Like the website Whispers of Restoration the Voice of the Family mentions the Baltimore Catechism without differentiating between Cushingism and Feeneyism.They also interpret all the Catechisms with Cushingism.So they maintain the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

For me there is no rupture with the Athanasius Creed. When the Baltimore Catechism mentions the Baptism of Desire it does not contradict  the Athanasius Creed. For me EENS ha no objective exceptions . This I call Feeneyism.-Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 3, 2019

Peter Kwasniewski and Whispers of Restoration do not know how to handle it : they violate the Principle of Non Contradiction and are in a swamp

The apologists at the website Whispers of Restoration have not responded to so many posts on this blog and are now thinking of having a paid-employee. They will produce more of the same stuff as the Catholics who interpret magisterial documents with an irrational premise and inference and do not deny it.

KWASNIEWSKI MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR

For Peter Kwasniewski a professor of philosophy and theology,  whose articles are recommended by the young menbers at Whispers of Restoration, all that is important are the rubrics, vestments and rituals of the Latin Mass even if the theology and doctrines are heretical.This is also the understanding of the volunters at Whispers of Restoration(WR).

They have given us  a list of old Catechisms which is appreciated but they interpret these catechisms with the false premise and inference to create a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), an ecumenism of return etc.

INTERPRET POPES CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER
So they actually interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation) as a rupture with EENS.They wrongly assume that the  baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are objective exceptions to EENS and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

So the Catechism of Pope Pius X would be a rupture with the Syllabus fo Errors and also EENS as it was interpreted by the Magisterium in the Middle Ages.

In other words the traditionalists at the time of Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X were contradicting themselves for Whispers of Restoration and Peter Kwasniewski.

NEW THEOLOGY OF THE TRADITIONALISTS

This is also the New Theology of Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, Chris Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw, John Lamont, Thomas Pink,Fr.Brian Harrison, the St.Benedict Centers, Rorate Caeli correspondents and the SSPX bishops and priests.It is the same for cardinals Kasper and Koch, Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishop Guido Pozzo.

It is with the false premise and inference that Peter Kwasniewski interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past  and then rejects the Council.


AQUINAS CONTRADICTS HIMSELF FOR WR AND KWASNIEWSKI

Kwasniewski referred to as a Thomistic scholar, on the website 1Peter5, would interpret St. Thomas Aquinas like the liberals. Aquinas affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. However when he mentions the case of the man in the jungle living in ignorance or the catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it, he is referring to an allegedly known person saved outside the Church for Kwasniewski and the traditionalists. So what was hypothetical for Aquinas is a concrete exception to EENS for Kwasniewski.

This is also the false reasoning of the liberals and the faculty at the Franciscan University of Steubenville where Peter Kwasneiwski taught.He writes regularly for New Liturgical Movement, OnePeterFive, LifeSiteNews, and Rorate Caeli.1

OFFERS THE LATIN MASS WITH THE NEW ECCLESIOLOGY

He offers  Mass  in Latin while affirming the New ecclesiology based on BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is schism with the past popes who did not see BOD, BOB and I.I as being known people saved outside the Catholic Church.It was the liberal theologians who made this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and then repeated it at Vatican Council II.

POLITICALLY CORRECT ON EENS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II

So Kwasneiwski is politically correct with the Left,like other traditionalists, and will not interpret EENS like Fr.Leonard Feeney for whom BOD, BOB and I.I literally did not exist.

He is also politically correct with the Left on Vatican Council II. Since he interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 as being exceptinos to EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. He had no criticism  when Cardinal Luiz Ladaria interpreted Lument Gentium 8 as an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology(Placquet Deo Press Conference). He also had no comment when Pope Benedict interpreted Vatican Council as a rupture with EENS(Avvenire,March 2016)





NO RESTORATION WITH HERESY AND CONFUSION

So it is no surprise that the young volunters at Whispers of Restoration are confused.They came to this good project with a lot of good will.

But Kwasniewski cannot help them and neither can Roberto Dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara or Steve Skoject. Since none of them want to affirm the taboo Feeneyite interpretation of EENS or my interpretation of Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.

They are aware that the Catechisms contradict each other and there is doctrinal confusion.This would be normal since they are violating the Principle of Non Contradiction but it is politically correct with the Left and the Vatican. .-Lionel Andrades

1

https://www.peterkwasniewski.com/about

AUGUST 9, 2018

Traditional Catechisms on Whispers of Restoration support the old exclusivist ecclesiology but the team at the website interpret these catechisms as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors,EENS and the rest of Tradition

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/traditional-catechisms-on-website.html

• Whispers of Restoration (10)
• Whispers of Restoration(WR) (2)

___________________________________

THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 2018

Repost : No Restoration with Cushingism.Not possible : There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism.Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5

AUGUST 5, 2018

There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism.Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5

Whispers of Restoration should have an article on Vatican Council II( Feeneyite). I have said it a few times. There is no  comment from them.They are another traditionalist Cushingite website.They sell books written by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei who base their understanding of Vatican Council II and EENS upon the  upon the heresy in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).There is no comment coming from them or from others from the Lefbrivist school of traditionalists.A few years have pased and they have no opinion on this issue.

Can the baptism of desire have two interpretations? No answer.

Can there be two interpretations of Vatican Council II? No answer.

ONE WAY ONLY

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has been teaching heresy when it says every one does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church, for salvation.Since the Letter reasons  wrongly that invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are objective and practical exceptions to the de fide teaching, on all needing to be a member of the Church for salvation( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).How can invisible cases of non Catholics be an an exception to traditional EENS according to the old catechisms? Yet this is how Ferrara and Mattei reason.So they have nothing to say. This is how they reasoned for 50 years.

They are not allowed to think in any other way.
1PETER5 SERVES ONLY CUSHINGISM

It's the same story on the website 1Peter5 and traditionalist bloggers.The only food they serve at their tables is Cushingite.No choice.They interpret all magisterial documents in only one way.

Someone said ,"This is what the Church teaches ".But the Church also supports Vatican Council II (Cushingite) so why do they reject it?

If they feel obliged to follow Pius XII they why not also John XXIII and Paul VI ?

The interpretation of Vatican Council II according to the Left and the present two popes is heretical.It is the same with EENS.

The website Whispers of Restoration presents itself as being traditionalist but they support the official and liberal heresy on salvation. If they avoid the LOHO mistake it's a new Vatican Council II.It would not be the traditionalism of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops who supported Cardinal Richard Cushing and Pope Pius XII.

The theology of the websites Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5 is based on LOHO.It is irrational.They can allegedly see people in Heaven and on earth saved without the baptism of water.This is also the interpretation of the Masons.The LOHO mistake is used to create a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).

We have to reject the second part of the LOHO, which is irrational and non traditional,and then we can have a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Today's 'traditionalists' are not really traditional especially the Lefebvrist school.Since they are in a rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Church which was Feeneyite and is expressed in the traditional Catechisms available on the website Whispers of Restoration.

They are in a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology since BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS for them.

FR.CEKADA POLITICALLY CORRECT
I think of Fr. Anthony Cekada who now knows that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in the present times and there were none in the past.But he keeps repeating his old line on 'Feeneyism',since it is politically correct.He does not have it in him to apologize and correct himself and others on this issue.

If he announces that he has started to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism, in which hypothetical cases are just hypothetical and not objective exceptions to EENS,  the Left may not allow him to teach.It is the same with Bishop Donald Sanborn who has politically correct articles on Feeneyism(according to the Left) on line.So their sedevacantist seminary and that of the 'Novus Ordo' seminaries in Florida,which they criticize  have the same Cushingite approach to Vatican Council II etc.There is no difference in theology, new doctrines and worldly prudence among both groups there.So they are given the mandatum to teach from the bishops and the local secular authorities.They have compromised on doctrine and theology in real life.

It was the same at the recent Lepanto FoundationConference in Rome when the New Theology was being criticized by the speakers, who in reality use the New Theology, Cushingism, to interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and EENS.Roberto dei Mattei and John Lamont like Fr. Anthony Cekada remain politically correct with the Left.All is well. It is as if they use the LOHO mistake to stay alive.

Similarly it seems difficult for Louis Verrecchio to say that UR 3 in Vatican Council II refers to a hypothetical case.I e-mailed him the correction.This was not the first time. There is no comment from him, for or against. It's as if he does not understand.

UR 3 refers to a hypothetical and theoretical cases for us and not someone practically seen in Heaven, saved as a Protestant in his religion.What's so difficult to understand about this?
He will continue to interpret UR 3 as being a non Catholic who has been saved outside the Church and is known personally to him. So of course it becomes a rupture with the dogma EENS. 

Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing about the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism( according to L.A) in the interpretation of the Council.The website Whispers of Restoration is promoting these books.

There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism. Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and1Peter5.

-Lionel Andrades

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018

If I had created this website I would not have to hide my name.Since I affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) which is not a rupture with the old catechisms.For me there is no change in ecclesiology in the Church from 1555 to 2018.

Interestingly the team which has created the website Whispers of Restoration have kept their names hidden.Probably because the catechisms since 1555 with traditional Feeneyite theology would be a rupture with Vatican Council II.The present two popes interpret the Council with Cushingism.

Vatican Council II(Cushingite) of course is heretical and should not be accepted .There is a rational and traditional choice available.

But the Whisperers of Restoration team could be accused of not affirming Vatican Council II.

If I had created this website I would not have had to hide my name.Since I affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) which is not a rupture with the old catechisms.

For me there is no change in ecclesiology in the Church from 1555 to 2018.

So when I affirm EENS I  am not a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. I mean that I reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite) like the traditionalists, but I affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).-Lionel Andrades

JULY 25, 2018

Whispers of Restoration needs an article on Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/whispers-of-restoration-needs-article.html

 JULY 25, 2018

Whispers of Restoration must include the 1994 Catechism with a note on interpreting it with Feeneyism and avoiding the common Cushingism

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/whispers-of-restoration-must-include.html

JULY 24, 2018

Official heresy - with false doctrines and irrational theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/official-heresy-with-false-doctrines.html

JULY 24, 2018

Whispers of Restoration - We have to face the visible-invisible, Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction and then proclaim the Faith

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/whispers-of-restoration-we-have-to-face.html

JULY 23, 2018

Fr.Francesco Giordano and faculty at Angelicum interpret Aquinas with Cushingism  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/frfrancesco-giordano-and-faculty-at.html

JULY 23, 2018

Pope John Paul II prohibited a theology of religions and it is being taught at the Angelicum University

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/pope-john-paul-ii-prohibited-theology.html

JULY 23, 2018

Voice of the Family Conference speaker recommends the New Theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/voice-of-family-conference-speaker.html

______________________________

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

___________________