Both of them in this video have missed the point. The New Ecumenism comes from a precise doctrinal and theological change. A subtle false premise. The New Evangelisation comes from the same New Theology.We cannot re-claim Traditional Mission with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades
Monday, August 16, 2021
The Confession of Faith of Timothy S. Flanders ' blog Meaning of Catholic is unclear : Flanders is the new editor in chief of the liberal -trad web blog 1Peter 5
From Timothy Flanders' Meaning of Catholic blog.
Confession of Faith
Everyone involved in The Meaning of Catholic adheres to this confession.
AUGUST 16, 2021
The Confession of Faith of Timothy Flanders' Meaning of Catholic media is unclear
From Anthony Flanders' Meaning of Catholic
Confession of Faith
Everyone involved in The Meaning of Catholic adheres to this confession.
I confess the Nicene, Athanasian, Pauline and Apostles creeds in the sense and understanding which the Church has always confessed. (Lionel : There are two ways to interpret these Creeds, one with a false premise and the other without it and the conclusion of course will be different. Most Catholics use the irrational version ) I condemn all errors in the Syllabus Errorum of Bl. Pius IX(Lionel: Again the Syllabus of Errors can be interpreted with or without the rational premise and the conclusion will be orthodox or heretical. Most Catholics use the heretical version. ), the Lamentabile of St. Pius X, and profess the Oath Against Modernism.(Lionel : It is the same.The interpretation of Magisterial documents with the common irrationality is modernism. ) I believe all matters of faith and morals that the Church has always taught according to their particular Theological Note.(Lionel: In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, 'the Church', assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in the present times(1949), were known and objective exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus; the Fr. Leonard Feeney version of EENS. This is a factual and objective error. It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit , it cannot be Magisterial. It contradicts the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church on EENS and the rational interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I.Over the centuries they interpreted BOD, I.I without the false premise.So the 'magisterium', the Church, has to be wrong at one time, in the past or today.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.meaningofcatholic.com/my-confession-of-faith/
AUGUST 16, 2021
Eric Sammons used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and then suggest there is known salvation outside the Church; visible non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance( all without the baptism of water).In this way they became practical exceptions to the 'absolutist' category of salvation, the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/eric-sammons-used-false-premise-to.html
Eric Sammons used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and then suggest there is known salvation outside the Church; visible non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance( all without the baptism of water).In this way they became practical exceptions to the 'absolutist' category of salvation, the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.
At 9:25 they speak about Vatican Council II.
Eric Sammons used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and then suggest there is known salvation outside the Church; visible non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance( all without the baptism of water).In this way they became practical exceptions to the 'absolutist' category of salvation, the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.
So his Salvation Spectrum includes the speculative categories exclusivist, reserved,moderate, expansive, pluralist, universalist.
With these categories exclusivist, reserved,moderate, expansive, pluralist and universalist, created with the false premise, he projects practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.He is also rejecting the absolutist interpretation found in the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
- Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 14, 2021
AUGUST 14, 2021
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he chooses the New Theology.
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he supports the New Theology.
Secondly Fr. Leonard Feeney was not condemned for his strict interpretation of EENS. The excommunication was lifted with him having to recite the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation. Vatican Council II has the same message. Ad Gentes 7 states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So if he interpreted the Council II and EENS rationally there would be no ‘ongoing debate on extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ as he has titled a report on Crisis Magazine.
In order to make the Salvation Spectrum more understandable, I’ve created a chart to lay out the various views:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-ongoing-debate-over-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus
If Eric Sammons interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS like Lionel Andrades and not the liberal professor of theology, Gavin D’Costa at the University of Bristol, England his interpretation would be rational and traditional. Now it is liberal and still political, like that of Joseph Shaw, John Rao, the late Mons. Brunero Gherardino and Jim Russel the liberal contributor to Crisis Magazine.They all accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 from which Sammons gets his New Theology. The Letter employs the false premise to produce schism and heresy which is officially approved by the popes.-Lionel Andrades
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
___________________
AUGUST 4, 2021
Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html
AUGUST 13, 2021
Today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise it cannot be Magisterial. This is an important point that Eric Sammons does not discuss
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/traditionis-custodes-pope-francis-and.html
AUGUST 13, 2021
We need unity on the Athanasius Creed ( with no exceptions ), the Syllabus of Errors ( with no exceptions), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance not being practical exceptions) and the Great Commission ( with no known exceptions), as they were interpreted over the centuries. But with the use of the deceptive false premise, exceptions are created and these documents are negated by even the popes, cardinals and bishops.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/we-need-unity-on-athanasiu
AUGUST 14, 2021
The popes from Paul VI to Francis have used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . The popes from Pius XII to Francis have used a false premise to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-from-paul-vi-to-francis-have_14.html
All the members of this panel confused the cause with the effect in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and are still doing the same
AUGUST 15, 2021
The cause for the liberalism in the Church after Vatican Council II is unknown and the result of the Council is mistaken as the cause of 'the revolution', 'the reforms' in the Church : the result is confused as the cause
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/incomplete.html
AUGUST 15, 2021
The cause for the liberalism in the Church after Vatican Council II is unknown and the result of the Council is mistaken as the cause of 'the revolution', 'the reforms' in the Church : the result is confused as the cause
The rejection of traditional exclusive salvation , the new ecumenism, ‘the spirit of Vatican Council II’, the general liberalism is not caused by Vatican Council II(VC2) per se, in itself.The result of VC2 has a hidden cause. It is subtle.Most people are unaware of the real cause of the liberalism. They confuse ‘the result’ as being the cause.Once the precise cause of the liberalism is known, it makes no difference, knowing that Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Cushing and Murray were present at the Counci. They all are incidental.Since once the cause of the liberalism is known, the liberalism can be eliminated and so the presence of the Masons at the Council, does not prevent a return to Tradition today, with the same Vatican Council II of 1965.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
This point of cause and effect is very important. Since most Catholics confuse the effect, the ‘liberal reforms of VC 2’ with the presence of liberal ecclesiastics and non Christians at the venue of the Council as being the cause. Or they confuse the change in liturgy, the new Mass, as the cause of the liberalism. They are not aware of the precise cause of the break with Tradition.It is hidden. So they put the responsibility, for the change in the Church, on many things, except for the precise cause.
Those who have been reading this blog Eucharist and Mission ( euchararistandmission ) will know what is the precise cause and how in a flash we can go back to Tradition in 2021.
But this was not known in 1965. It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. If Fr. Leonard Feeney knew about it he did not mention it in public. It was not known clearly to Archbishop Pierre Thuc.
THE NEW THEOLOGY WAS BASED UPON AN EMPIRICAL ERROR
Let me name it.The precise cause for 'the revolution', 'the reforms of VC2', 'the paradigm shift' in the Catholic Church, 'the New Theology', was an empirical error, an error in observation, a philosophical error, that go passed every one.It was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO).
Now we come to the 'cause'. The cause, in a surprise for some, would not be the German theologians or the German ecclesiastics.The cause was a simple and subtle error, which brought in a New Theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation in the present times.This resulted in new doctrines, a dogma being discarded. The result was there were new disciplines in the Church, a new understanding of Church ( ecclesiology). With the New Theology it was possible to have the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law etc.
It seems as if Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, knew what was the precise cause and he would not make it public. He would use it to make changes in the Church. He would sustain the progressivism and liberalism, now seen in the German Synodal Path.He did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre about 'the cause', but allowed him to be excommunicated. If Pope Pius XII knew of 'the cause' i.e invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he did not announce it. He allowed Fr. Leonard Feeney to be excommunicated.He let the Church believe that invisible cases are visible.
So the irrationality, 'the cause' came into the Church when Joseph Ratzinger was a young man during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.Ratzinger was not responsible for it.He went along with 'the dark secret ', beleiving it was in the interest of peace and security and the welfare of the Church.
Our Lady would tell Fr. Stefano Gobbi, in her locutions to him, that Satan would enter the Church at the highest levels and confuse ecclesiastics.
Pope Pius XII knew about the dark secret but he kept quiet with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney, the archives indicate. This was mentioned by Brother Andre Marie MICM when interviewed by Timothy Flanders, the new editor at 1Peter5.
The 'cause' was the confusing of hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being objective examples of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions to the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So the LOHO wrongly concluded that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.Why? Since there were, allegedly, personally known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water, and instead with BOD, BOB and I.I.
So now it is asked , how can invisible people be practical exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return, or the traditional ecclesiocentrism of Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center ?
Fr.Leonard Feeney could see through the error. He commented on the ecclesiastics in Boston and Rome, not knowing theology.
They probably knew theology but for political reasons were projecting invisible cases as being practical exceptions to traditional EENS. This was after World War II and the creation of the new state of Israel.
Fr. Leonard Feeney had the Boston establishment and hierarchy in Rome against him.Their agenda seemed, 'get rid of the dogma EENS in the Catholic Church. Teach error.'Archbishop Lefebvre was up against the same thing in 1965.The St. Benedict Center(SBC) and the SBC professors dismissed by Jesuit Boston College, knew what was happening, but to whom could they go to ? Boston and Rome wanted to change doctrine and then Pope Paul VI made it official at Vatican Council II.
LUMEN GENTIUM 16 IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE
In all the confusion of those times no one pointed out that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, like BOD and I.I in 1949 were always invisible cases.
If LG 8 etc, like BOD and I.I are seen as invisible cases the Church could return to it's past exclusivist ecclesiology. There would no more be the New Theology and New Liberalism.
THEY COULD SEE THE RESULT BUT NOT THE CAUSE.
Many religious left the Church after 1965.They could see 'the result'.They did not know about the cause. May be some in Boston knew what was the cause.The cause was not the elimination of the dogma EENS-that was the result. The cause was the official use of the false premise.It was confusing hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being practical exceptions to EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc.
The cause of the rupture with Tradition was not known to the SBC either.They were interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.This can be seen today on the Catholicism.org reports on Vatican Council II.The SBC never said that Vatican Council II was Feeneyite. Instead, like the SSPX, the Council was always Cushingite for them.They interpreted the Council with the false premise.It was the popes who also used the false premise and so were irrational, heretical and schismatic.
The SBC communities held on to the truth about EENS for all of us and we have to admire them for this.
The 'cause'- was the false premise.
Now Pope Francis can re-read Vatican Council II differently. He has a choice. We all have a choice. We don't have to read the Council like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Our premise is invisible cases are always invisible on earth.This is rational.So our conclusion is invisible cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II, are not visible exceptions to EENS).Our conclusion is now rational and traditional.
For us, the ecclesiology of the Church today, can be the same as in 1948 and earlier.Vatican Council II (rational) is an ally, with the hermeneutic of continuity with past.It means when Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II, EENS and other Magisterial documents with the rational premise they are Magisterial. When they use the false premise they are no more magisterial.-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 14, 2021
Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Catholics can interpret the Council with a rational premise and undo the error of half a century.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/pope-francis-interpretation-of-vatican.html
AUGUST 14, 2021
There is an objective and factual error in Eric Sammons new book Deadly Indifference. His Salvation Spectrum is based upon the irrational premise he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.Without the objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus he would be left with only the ‘absolutist’ interpretation, in his spectrum.Now he chooses the New Theology
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/there-is-objective-factual-and.html
AUGUST 14, 2021
All the reports on Traditionis Custode are not mentioning that the popes have interpreted Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with a fake premise and this is the officially approved interpretation for all priests who wish to offer Holy Mass in any rite
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/all-reports-on-traditionis-custode-are_14.html
AUGUST 14, 2021
The popes from Paul VI to Francis have used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . The popes from Pius XII to Francis have used a false premise to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-from-paul-vi-to-francis-have_14.html
AUGUST 14, 2021
We are Catholics and not leftist politicians
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/we-are-catholics-and-not-leftist.html
AUGUST 14, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic. We are no more limited by half a century of error.We have found the missing link. We now know how to consistently, systematically and regularly create the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition when reading VC2
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/vatican-council-ii-is-dogmatic-we-are.html
AUGUST 13, 2021
Today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise it cannot be Magisterial. This is an important point that Eric Sammons does not discuss
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/today-when-pope-francis-interprets_13.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/traditionis-custodes-pope-francis-and.html
AUGUST 12, 2021
The FSSP priests must stay in France but announce that they accept Vatican Council II but interpret it rationally.So the Council supports traditional dogma and doctrine. If Pope Francis and the bishops say that the Council must be interpreted irrationally to create a rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) this is unethical and not Catholic.Even by secular standards this is dishonest.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-fssp-priests-must-stay-in-france.html
Lionel Andrades
Promotore dell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II. Per lui il Concilio è dogmatico e non solo pastorale.
Scrittore sulla scoperta delle due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II, l'una razionale e l'altra irrazionale, si interpreta l'una con la falsa premessa e l'altra senza. Uno è Magistrale e l'altro, quello comune, è non Magistrale.
Lo stesso vale per i Credo ei Catechismi.
Ci possono essere due interpretazioni.
Perché i cattolici dovrebbero scegliere una versione irrazionale che è eretica, non tradizionale e scismatica, quando c'è un'opzione razionale che è tradizionale?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
AUGUST 4, 2021
Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html
________________
There cannot be a Restoration in the Church because the Lefebvrists are the biggest asset of the progressivists. Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode interpreted Vatican Council II like the both of them
There is not a single report on Traditionis Custode which
informs Pope Francis that all the books on Vatican Council II are written with
a fake premise instead of a rational premise, inference and traditional
conclusion.
Peter Kwasniewski did not mention it in his talk at Denver and
he recommended books by the Lefebvrists,who also do not interpret Vatican
Council II with the rational premise.They are politically correct like the
liberals.
Kwasniewski uses a false premise to create a fake rupture with
Tradition and does not deny it since this is expected of him, by the Left. If
the other Lefebvrists ( Schneider, Mattei, Marshall, Vigano, Matt and Burke)
did not use the fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II they would be
affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus( with no exceptions mentioned in the
Council-text), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( with no exceptions for
an ecumenism of return) and the Athanasius Creed ( which is no more
contradicted by Lumen Gentium).
If they are rational on Vatican Council II then they know that
they will be persecuted like the St. Benedict Center, NH, USA.
So the alleged traditionalists have compromised and do not write
or talk about Vatican Council II interpreted with a rational premise.
Don Pietro Leone on
Rorate Caeili does not make the invisible-visible distinction when writing on
Vatican Council II in harmony with the popes . Sometimes it is said or asked
,in correspondence, ‘Why should we make the invisible-visible distinction? And I
respond, ‘ You are already making the invisible-visible distinction
unknowingly. I am calling attention to it. If LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,
GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or the
Syllabus of Errors for you, then in your mind you project them as being visible’.If
LG 8, LG 16 etc were invisible cases in 2021, as they are for me, then the
Lefebvrists and liberals would be affirming the Catechism of Pope Pius X (
24Q,27Q) with invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire not being
exceptions. The Catechism would not contradict itself.
We cannot physically and visibly, in Newton’s time and space,
see someone saved in invincible ignorance. It can only be known to God.
For Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM,
Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition. So they are telling us that LG
8, LG 16, UR 3 etc refer to physically visible cases of salvation outside the
Catholic Church, in specfic and known cases, in 1965-2021. This is the New
Theology of the liberals and the popes.It is also shared by Peter Kwasniewski.
There cannot be a Restoration in the Church because the
Lefebvrists are the biggest asset of the progressivists. Pope Francis in
Traditionis Custode interpreted Vatican Council II like the both of them.-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
