Hearing remarks of this nature from the crowd, as well as remarks about canon law, Minnerath asked, “Have you studied theology of any kind? Do you know more about this than I do? So please, do stop … Canon law, I know what that is. If you want to use petty arguments, if you want to continue to be led by the discourse of the fraternity that has a problem … ” -Bishop Roland Minnerath
BISHOP MINNERATH TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE LAITY'S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Bishop Minnerath was taking advantage of the laity in Dijon's lack of
knowledge of theology and his theological errors.
The laity in France must note that
Bishop Roland Minneraths books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology, Concordats
etc are obsolete since he used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
and other Magisterial documents, to create a fake rupture with Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus (EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, on ecumenism,
liberalism, other religions, non separation of Church and State etc.
BISHOP MINNERATH INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND THE LAITY DO NOT KNOW THIS.
He has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and non
traditional conclusion instead of the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the
approach by Lionel Andrades.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic for
me, it is in harmony with the exclusivist interpretation of extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) but the Council is a rupture with EENS
for the bishop.This should be expected, since he uses the common false
premise,to create the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. This is not known to the laity and also the
FSSP.
The laity and the FSSP must know that there are 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.
THERE CAN BE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE LAITY DON'T KNOW THIS
It is the same for the Creeds
and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
So why should the Catholics in
Dijon, choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and
schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
BISHOP MINNERATH MUST NOT CITE VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED WITH A FALSE PREMISE TO REJECT TRADITION
This is the
theology that the laity must know and then talk to the bishop about it.
Ask him not
to cite Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise, to justify his
liberalism.
BISHOP MINNERATH MUST AFFIRM THE ATHANASIUS CREED IN PUBLIC
Ask him to affirm the Athanasius Creed in
public.It says all need Catholic faith for salvation. It is not contradicted by
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, without the false premise.So he can affirm Vatican Council II
and the Athanasius Creed in public.-Lionel Andrades
French bishop tells faithful protesting departure of FSSP from their diocese that their priests must concelebrate the Novus Ordo https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-bishops-tells-faithful-protesting-departure-of-fssp-from-their-diocese-that-their-priests-must-concelebrate-the-novus-ordo
______________________
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- - 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
___________________
Posts
