Saturday, June 26, 2021
Peter and Michael do not want to discuss this issue : they made a major error on Vatican Council II
The Comitato dell Immacolata of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i could ask the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Rome to please affirm the First Commandment, the Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed, all the Catechisms and Vatican Council II without the fake premise and with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion
The Comitato dell Immacolata of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i, which controls the property, in the parish of Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, could ask the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, Rome to please affirm the First Commandment, the Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed, all the Catechisms and Vatican Council II without the fake premise and with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion. - Lionel Andrades
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not just pastoral.
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 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
The priests in my parish interpret the Creeds with a fake premise and do not deny it. They agree with me.It is the same with the rest of the diocese.
The priests in my parish interpret the Creeds with a fake premise and do not deny it. They agree with me.It is the same with the rest of the diocese.
They interpret the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with a fake premise and they agree that they do so. So they do not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
They interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality and admit that they do so, like the rest of the diocese and the present two popes.
All this is unethical and dishonest and is common."So what?", could be the common reaction in the parish.
Even the Catechism is interpreted irrationally and so is politically correct with the Left.
Simply reject Tradition, is the message.
The Sacraments are available for all. They call this 'pastoral'.They also have a pastoral and non dogmatic approach in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades
UNE 26, 2021
The problem in Dijon, Franace is the same as the diocese in which I live in Rome, Porta Santa Rufina.Here the Latin Mass was stopped and the seminary of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i remains closed.The issue for me is Vatican Council II interpreted with or without a false premise, and not the liturgy.
The problem in Dijon, Franace is the same as the diocese in which I live in Rome, Porta Santa Rufina.Here the Latin Mass was stopped and the seminary of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i remains closed.The issue for me is Vatican Council II interpreted with or without a false premise, and not the liturgy. I have been going for Mass in Italian at the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, and have been affirming the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions.I did not have to reject Tradition.I would attend the Novus Ordo Mass and still affirm the Athansius Creed with no known exceptions.I could do all this without rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted without the false premise.So the Council has no exceptions for EENS, for me.Vatican Council II is not a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries of the 16th century. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and no development of doctrine.
For me there is no New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger, since there is no false premise used.It's simple.
There is no development of doctrine possible, since I avoid the false premise, inference and conclusion.
Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and the cardinals and bishops are not Magisterial on Vatican Council II for me, since they use a fake premise, a lie, to interpret the Council and then create a false rupture with Tradition. It is the same in the other dioceses of Rome. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 25, 2021
In my parish there is no unity on the First Commandment, the interpretation of the Nicene Creed is different and the Athanasius Creed is rejected : under these conditions I have to go up to receive the Eucharist
Cardinal Parolin did not tell Prime Minister Draghi that homosexual acts are mortal sins which take a person to Hell for all eternity is the teaching of the Catholic Church : Official transgenderism is creating an opening for impure spirits
The issue is Vatican Council II and they are wrongly blaming the Mass in Latin
Pope Francis does not allowed Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i to re-open the seminary at Casalotti, Boccea, Rome and have the Latin Mass available in the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth. In the past we could go for the Latin and Italian Mass in this parish.
Since Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise there is a rupture with Tradition.The rupture with Tradition does not come with the Latin or Italian Mass.
So now he expects those who go for the Latin Mass to give up Tradition and accept Vatican Council II, interpreted with the false premise.
Those who do not affirm Vatican Council II with the false premise the media calls schismatic and Pope Francis calls them rigid. Neither Pope Francis or the media will interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise i.e LG 8, LG 16 etc are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since they refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only. They are not objective people saved outside the Church.
But for Pope Francis and the media LG 8, LG 16,UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible people in 1965-2021 saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and the baptism of water.This is irrational. There are no such people visible on earth. His premise is false. Invisible people are not visible.
However without this false premise Vatican Council II would be in harmony with Tradition and if Pope Francis accepted it, he would be 'rigid' for the Left.
So the issue is Vatican Council II and they are wrongly blaming the Mass in Latin. -Lionel Andrades
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not just pastoral.
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 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
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Diana Montagna were politically correct with the Left in Trent. They interpreted Vatican Council II like the progressivists and said that they accept the Council
JUNE 26, 2021
The real issue with Bishop Roland Minnerath is not the Latin Mass ( the diocesan priests will make it available) but the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church
The FSSP priests in Dijon, France must understand that the real issue with Bishop Roland Minnerath is not the Latin Mass ( the diocesan priests will make it available) but the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Since the FSSP priests evangelize non Christians it means that they are putting aside Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise, and are going back directly to traditional sources.They are going back to Tradition without Vatican Council II.
This is where the problem exists.
Instead they should go back to Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc) interpreted without the false premise and re-interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, and ask every one in the diocese to do the same.So it will be Tradition ( without the false premise) and Vatican Council II( without the false premise). Both will be acceptable. They will not have to choose. Neither will they have to reject the Council. Instead it is Bishop Minnerath who will have to reject Vatican Council II and Tradition.
When all this is known in the diocese it will expose the weakness( dishonesty) and errors( false philosophy and theology) of the diocesan priests.They are all interpreting Church documents and teachings with a fake premise and this not be exposed. -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 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