The Latin laity could ask Bishop Roland Minnerath for unity with Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents interpreted without an irrational premise : then there would be no rupture with Tradition which they support

 

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/laity-protest-latin-mass-hating-archbishop

The families who attended the FSSP Mass in Dijon could ask Bishop Roland Minnerath for unity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no known exceptions), the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith ( and does not mention any exceptions), the Syllabus of Errors ( with no known exceptions)and Vatican Council II with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.- Lionel Andrades

Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Diana Montagna with their confusion on Vatican Council II tell Italians in Trent that they accept the Council.This is even when it is interpreted with a false premise.

 

The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water and we cannot judge any one as being an exception to the norm.So when i meet a non Catholic I know that he is not an exception to the norm.He is lost unless he converts into the Catholic Church. I consider the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as not being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.There are no literal cases in 2021.So Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition for me. It has a continuity with traditional exclusive salvation. Ad Gente 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So according to the Council all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation(AG 7) and not only those who ‘know’(LG 14).Those who ‘know’ and who are saved are known only to God.The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 14. While LG 14 is not an exception for AG 7.

All the bishopsin Rome agree with me. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation since there are no physically visible cases of non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water who could be exceptions to the Catholic norm for salvation.

Ask any bishop and he will say that personally he does not know of any exceptions since only God can judge if there is an exception to the norm.

At the conference in Trent, Italy, the other day, to promote their book, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Diana Montagna were telling Italians that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and so they reject the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since LG 16 etc would be exceptions to EENS for them.

So it means that they reject the traditional interpreation of th Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( with no exceptions), since BOD,BOB and I.I would be exceptions.They reject the Athanasius Creed. Since BOD, BOB and I.I would be exceptions.They are ‘traditionalists’ who interpret Magisterial documents like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and the liberals.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/pope-francis-interprets-vatican-council.html

Le Pen must see that the problem in Dijon is political and not only religious : Bishop Minnerath must be asked to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise at Holy Mass

 

LE PEN MUST SEE THAT THE PROBLEM IN DIJON IS POLITICAL AND NOT ONLY RELIGIOUS: BISHOP MINNERATH MUST BE ASKED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE AT HOLY MASS.

Le Pen must be shown that the Dijon problem is not only religious but also political. Bishop Minnerath wants to interpret Vatican Council II like the poltiical Left and so create a rupture between Church and State, faith and practical government.
Vatican Council II is interpreted with a false premise to create a break with the historical understanding of faith and morals. Le Pen could be asked to comment on the problem of the Latin Mass / Vatican Council II in Dijon. Why do lay Catholics have to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and create a break with the old ecclesiology and past theology of the Traditional Mass in France?
Lesamisdebasilique could appeal to Le Pen for the Latin Mass to be offered by priests who interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise. Because without the false premise, there is no break with the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church in France. .
Liberalism in theology and doctrine in Dijon depends upon the use of a false premise. Without the false premise, the Church would say that there is no known salvation outside the Church in the present times. LG, LG 16, UR 3 etc. would not be examples of known people saved without faith and the baptism of water in 2021. Then Vatican Council II would be saying outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7).
For Bishop Minnerath the Second Vatican Council now says instead that outside the Church there is salvation.Since he interpret the Council, confusing LG 8, LG 16 etc as exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It is as if LG 8, LG 16 etc refer to real people and not only to hypothetical and speculative cases. Without this deception, Bishop Roland Minnerath cannot quote Vatican Council II to support his liberalism.
The bishop wrote books and articles interpreting the Second Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors with the common false premise.So he created a false new theology, which is a break with Tradition. This false break with Tradition will be the theology of diocesan priests at the Novus Ordo(French) and Latin Mass in Dijon. Why should diocesan priests offer the Mass in Latin with the left-wing political version of the Second Vatican Council?

Le Pen could ask Bishop Minnerath to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors without the false premise and to interpret the First Commandment as did the Magisterium of the Church over the centuries in France.
The difference between Bishop Minnerath and me is that I consider baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BDS) and invincible ignorance (I.I) as not being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. There are no literal cases in 2021. So the Second Vatican Council is not a break with Tradition for me. It has a continuity with the traditional exclusive salvation. Ad Gentes 7 says that everyone needs faith and baptism for salvation. Therefore according to the Council everyone needs to convert to the Catholic Church for salvation (AG 7) and not only those who "know" (LG 14). Those who "know" and who are saved,are known only to God. The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 14. While LG 14(invincible ignorance) is not exception for AG 7. -Lionel Andrades

 JUNE 27, 2021

Bishop Roland Minnerath made an error in two books which he wrote on Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-made-error-in.html

JUNE 26, 2021

The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion

 The diocesan priests in Dijon, France who will replace the FSSP priests and offer Holy Mass in Latin must be asked by the laity to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, inference and conclusion and instead with the rational, premise and traditional conclusion. - Lionel Andrades

UNE 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

___________________

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 cannot be the Ordinary Magisterium or the Deposit of the Faith .It has an objective error. It uses a false premise to create a break with Tradition.

 DOCTRINAL BELIEFS

1. The members of the Saint Benedict Center believe with Divine and Catholic Faith all those things contained in the Word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the Solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the Sacred Magisterium, avoiding any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.1
2. We embrace and retain each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of Faith and Morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same Deposit of Faith.2
3. We adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.  https://catholicism.org/doctrinal-belief.html  

The members of the Saint Benedict Center believe with Divine and Catholic Faith all those things contained in the Word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the Solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the Sacred Magisterium, avoiding any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) cannot be Magisterial since it uses a false premise. It assumes that the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So the LOHO implies that BOD and I.I are objective cases in the present times (1949-2021) for them to be practical exceptions to EENS. But we now know that BOD and I.I can only be speculative and hypothetical cases and in no conditions on earth are practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church. So it cannot be said  ‘ one possesses faith and sanctifying grace, one can be saved without being a formal member.’ 1 One always has to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation and we do not know any one who has been saved( or will be saved) with faith and sanctifying grace outside the Church.

We embrace and retain each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of Faith and Morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same Deposit of Faith.

Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 cannot me Magisterial and part of the Deposit of the Faith since it assumes unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are objective and known exceptions to all needing to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation.This is a break with the past Magisterium which did not confuse invisible cases as being visible and then projecting them as practical exceptions to EENS. This is schism with the past Church.It is the 1949 'magisterium' opposing the Magisterium of the Church over the centuries.

We adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act

Lionel: The popes and the College of cardinals and bishops all over the world accept the Letter of the Holy Office with the objective error. It has created a false new theology in the Church which they all use to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church.This is official heresy and schism and not the Magisterium. The Holy Spirit cannot break with Tradition and that to with an objective mistake. This cannot be called a 'mystery' of the Church by teachers of ecclesiology. When the false premise is  not used there is no more 'mystery'. There cannot be a development of doctrine or a new revelation in the Church based upon the false premise in the LOHO. -Lionel Andrades

1

 JUNE 28, 2021

NECESSITY OF MEANS (Letter of the Holy Office 1949-Theological Foundation for the New Theology based upon the false premise )

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/necessity-of-means-letter-of-holy.html

NECESSITY OF MEANS (Letter of the Holy Office 1949-Theological Foundation for the New Theology based upon the false premise )

 

NECESSITY OF MEANS (Letter of the Holy Office 1949-Theological Foundation for the New Theology based upon the false premise. ) 

Necessity of Means | Encyclopedia.com

 

Necessity of means is relative when it does not exclude the possibility of being supplied by something else. Thus Baptism of water is necessary for salvation by a relative necessity of means; in fact, under certain conditions, Baptism of desire (in voto ) can remit original sin.

Lionel:

The baptism of water is always necessary on earth for salvation. Every one needs it.Practically there are no cases of the baptism of desire.

It is written, that 'The Baptism of water is necessary for salvation by a relative necessity of means, in fact, under certain conditions, baptism of desire can remit original sin’, Under no conditions known to us humans can the baptism of desire remit original sin. The baptism of water is always necessary for salvation. De facto there are no known cases of the baptism of desire there is no relative necessity of means.The baptism of desire can only be a concept by defacto necessity.

Necessity of means is relative when it does not exclude the possibility of being supplied by something else. Thus Baptism of water is necessary for salvation by a relative necessity of means; in fact, under certain conditions, Baptism of desire (in voto ) can remit original sin. Similarly the Church is necessary for salvation by absolute necessity of means, but membership in the Church is necessary only by relative necessity of means, because, if one is invincibly ignorant of the Church and at the same time, through the Church's invisible mediation, one possesses faith and sanctifying grace, one can be saved without being a formal member. Relative necessity of means is also called physical necessity.

‘Membership in the Church is necessary only by relative necessity of means, because, if one is invincibly ignorance of the Church and at the same time, through the Church’s invisible mediation, one possesses faith and sanctifying grace, one can be saved without being a formal member.’ This is false.Practically membership in the Catholic Church is always necessary for salvation.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism. If one is invincilbly ignorant and is saved it would only be known to God. No such case is known to us on earth. Also if someone is saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water, it is an unknown case to us and so is not an objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If ‘ one possesses faith and sanctifying grace, one can be saved without being a formal member.’ This is false and heretical. If one possesses faith and sanctifying grace, in a hypothetical and theoretical case, it is not an objective case in the present times and so it is not a practical exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So this is a false premise. It comes from the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

-Lionel Andrades

 

Bibliography: f. lakner, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche ², ed. j. hofer and k. rahner (Freiburg 1957–65); suppl., Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Dokumente und Kommentare, ed. h. s. brechter et al., pt. 1 (1966) 7:862–863.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=by+a+relative+necessity+of+means&rlz=1C1GCEA_enIT876IT876&oq=by+a+relative+necessity+of+means&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i22i29i30.1893j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Signore Gesù grazie perché ci hai radunati qui, da tante parti del Mondo