THE LAITY IN DIJON COULD PRODUCE ANOTHER VIDEO ASKING WHY SHOULD THE FSSP PRIESTS CONCELEBRATE HOLY MASS WITH BISHOP MINNERATH AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS WHEN THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE TO CREATE A RUPTURE WITH TRADITION AS HELD BY THE LAITY.
The lesamisbasilique 2021 could produce another video affirming the Catholic faith and then see the reaction of Bishop Roland Minnerath and the FSSP and diocesan priests. The video could ask – why should the FSSP priests concelebrate Holy Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath when they interpret Vatican Council II intentionally with a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition as known to the FSSP priests and the laity?
1. They could ask Bishop Minnerath to affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q) and also Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) with Vatican Council II ( LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc ) not being in conflict with AG 7.It would not contradict the de fide teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions.
2. They could ask the bishop to affirm Vatican Council II( Ad Gentes 7) with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc not being practical exceptions in 2021 to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return etc.
3. Ask the bishop to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), which was defined by three Church Councils ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).The bishop must make it clear that the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO)1949 are not exceptions.The LOHO used a false premise.
The lesamisbasilique 2021 could produce another video but this one would be on the Catholic Church’s teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation (Quas Primas etc they could show how Quas Primas is supported by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
Bishop Minnerath has written about the Syllabus of Errors, Vatican Council II, the Concordats, the theology of religions and a rejection of an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.He could be asked to correct himself and interpret the Council in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius IX ( 24Q,27Q).
Since Vatican Council II (AG 7) supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3 etc not being objective exceptions to AG 7 and EENS, all need to fomally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.So it is important that the political administrations and governments in Dijon and France be Catholic, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.It is imperative for the salvation of souls from going to Hell that the Social Reign of Christ the King be proclaimed once again in France.Jesus as he is known traditionally in the Catholic Church, should be the centre of all political legislation.
The bishop must be informed that he interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and expects the laity to do the same even though a rational option is available.The rational option would place the Council in harmony with Tradition ( EENS etc)? So the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church today would be the same as the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, at the time of St. Joan of Arc.
The bishop could be asked in the video,”Why should the FSSP priests concelebrate Mass with him and the diocesan priests who interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a fake rupture with the Tradition, which the FSSP and the laity uphold?.-Lionel Andrades
JUNE 30, 2021
The Latin laity have to choose to interpret Vatican Council II not like Bishop Minnerath and the FSSP in Dijon, France but Lionel Andrades : otherwise they attend the Latin Mass with the New Ecclesiology, New Theology and New Ecumenism.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
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 it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades
_____________________
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).
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE PIUS XII( This letter was an inter office correspondence between cardinals. However the liberals placed it in the Denzinger and it has been referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains an objective error when it assumes invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Upon this Letter is based the New Theology.) We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemnjudgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807). Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
MAGISTERIAL
DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE
PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL.
___________________
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.
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).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
MAGISTERIAL
DOCUMENTS CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH 1)THE RED PASSAGES BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
BLUE PASSAGES OR WITH 2)THE RED PASSAGES NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE
PASSAGES.THE LATTER(2) IS RATIONAL.
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.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him...- Ad Gentes 7. Vatican Council II
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.
Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
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.
13 The bishops and the diocesan priests are in an irregular
situation since they do not use the Lionel Andrades interpretation?
The Priestly Fraterniy of St. Peter (FSSP) for example, will
have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an
‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past
Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican
Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness
came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.This is
being identfied here.It is being pointed out to.So we are back to the original
premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the Catholic Church. I call it
the LA interpretation to identify it.I am presently the only one who is using
it with reference to Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.
14.Only the Catholic Church?
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to
Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon, for example, need an organisation or office to proclaim
the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican
Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad
Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this
organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
The Social Reign of Christ the King can be proclaimed based upon
the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II.
The laity in Dijon, or any where else in the world, could
organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the
Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive
ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and
Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no
more be seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission,
Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the
bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the
false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset.Since there could
no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have
changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the
Church.Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the
ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture
with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the
Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come
outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want
to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
15.The Rite does not make a difference?
Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create
the Amazon Rite and new rites, for the
Mass.The ecclesiology of the Church will
not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th
century.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: - Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
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
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.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
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.
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.
13 The bishops and the diocesan priests are in an irregular
situation since they do not use the Lionel Andrades interpretation?
The Priestly Fraterniy of St. Peter (FSSP) for example, will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.This is being identfied here.It is being pointed out to.So we are back to the original premise, inference and traditional conclusion of the Catholic Church. I call it the LA interpretation to identify it.I am presently the only one who is using it with reference to Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents.
14.Only the Catholic Church?
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to
Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon, for example, need an organisation or office to proclaim
the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican
Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad
Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this
organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
The Social Reign of Christ the King can be proclaimed based upon the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II.
The laity in Dijon, or any where else in the world, could organize candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more be seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumenism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the
bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the
false premise and it is the progressivists who will be upset.Since there could
no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have
changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the
Church.Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the
ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture
with collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the
Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come
outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want
to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
15.The Rite does not make a difference?
Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create the Amazon Rite and new rites, for the Mass.The ecclesiology of the Church will not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
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
Posts
