Sunday, August 22, 2021
Domande e Risposte sul l'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II / Questions et Responses sur l'interpretation de Lionel Andrades du Conseil du Vaticano II / Questions and Answers about the Lionel Andrades intepretation of Vatican Council II
DOMANDE E RISPOSTE SULL'INTERPRETAZIONE DI LIONEL ANDRADES DEL CONCILIO VATICANO II
1. Cosa c'è di così speciale nell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II?
Non usa la comune falsa premessa. E' un modo semplice, razionale e diverso di leggere il Concilio Vaticano II.
2. Cosa c'è di così speciale nell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades di extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)?
La stessa ragione. Non usa la falsa premessa comune per interpretare il battesimo del desiderio (BDD), l'ignoranza invincibile (I.I) e il battesimo di sangue (BDS). Quindi non ci sono eccezioni pratiche per EENS. EENS è tradizionale e BDD, BDS e I.I sono interpretati razionalmente. Non è EENS o BDS, BDS e I.I. Poiché questi ultimi non fanno eccezione per i primi.
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)?
The same reason as above. 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.
QUESTIONS ET REPONSES SUR L'INTERPRETATION DE LIONEL ANDRADES DU CONSEIL DU VATICAN II
1.Qu'est-ce que l'interprétation Lionel Andrades du Concile Vatican II a de si spécial ?
Il
n'utilise pas la fausse prémisse commune. C'est une façon simple, rationnelle
et différente de lire le Concile Vatican II.
2.Qu'est-ce qu'il y a de si spécial dans l'interprétation de Lionel Andrades d'extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ?
Le
même que ci-dessus. Il n'utilise pas la fausse prémisse commune pour
interpréter le baptême de désir (BDD), l'ignorance invincible (I.I) et le
baptême de sang (BDS). Il n'y a donc pas d'exceptions pratiques pour EENS.
EENS est traditionnel et BDD, BDS et I.I
sont interprétés rationnellement. Ce n'est pas EENS ou BOB, BOB et I.I. Puisque
ces derniers ne sont pas des exceptions pour les premiers.-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 22, 2021
Pope Francis uses the fake premise. He is not Magisterial on Vatican Council II. The error is not fixed and permanent. It can be corrected
FAKE PREMISE OF POPE FRANCIS
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 POPE FRANCIS
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
FAKE CONCLUSION OF POPE FRANCIS
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.
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’.
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.-Lionel Andrades
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
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.
TWO COLUMN APPROACH subjective or objective.
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2021 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead-saved are visible.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.Bishop Roland Minnerath and the Diocesan priests in Dijon, France use the irrational right hand side column.So there is an artificial break with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance never ever were an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were, and are, no known exceptions.-L.A
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
________________
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.
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.-Lionel Andrades
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE BLUE IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"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.
TWO COLUMN APPROACHsubjective or objective.
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2021 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead-saved are visible.- If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
- Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.Bishop Roland Minnerath and the Diocesan priests in Dijon, France use the irrational right hand side column.So there is an artificial break with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance never ever were an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were, and are, no known exceptions.-L.A
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
________________
La Chiesa principale, la Chiesa Cattolica in generale, mainstream, oggi è liberale a causa della falsa premessa. Si usino una premessa razionale il liberalismo cade da tutta la Chiesa.
La Chiesa principale, la Chiesa Cattolica in generale, mainstream, oggi è liberale a causa della falsa premessa. Si usino una premessa razionale il liberalismo cade da tutta la Chiesa.
PREMESSA IRRAZIONALE
La premessa irrazionale è che le cose o le persone invisibili sono visibili.
PREMESSA RAZIONALE
La premessa razionale è che le cose o le persone invisibili sono visibili.
_______________________
PREMESSA IRRAZIONALE
La premessa irrazionale è che casi ipotetici siano oggettivamente visibili nel 2021.
PREMESSA RAZIONALE
La premessa razionale è che i casi ipotetici sono oggettivamente invisibili nel 2021.
_______________________
PREMESSA IRRAZIONALE
La premessa irrazionale è che il battesimo del desiderio si riferisca a casi personalmente conosciuti nel 2021.
PREMESSA RAZIONALE
La premessa razionale è che il battesimo del desiderio si riferisca a casi sconosciuti nel 2021 Non c'è nessun caso conosciuto personalmente.
_____________________
PREMESSA IRRAZIONALE
La premessa irrazionale presuppone che ci siano casi oggettivamente visti e conosciuti di essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e senza il battesimo dell'acqua nel 2016.
PREMESSA RAZIONALE
La premessa razionale è assumere che gli altri (in generale) non possano vedere casi invisibili nel presente e nel passato, supponendo che il battesimo del desiderio si riferisca a un caso sconosciuto e invisibile nel presente o nel passato.
Quando si usa una premessa irrazionale, la chiamo Cushingismo.
Quando c'è una premessa razionale, la chiamo Feeneyismo.-Lionel Andrades
The mainstream Church is liberal today because of the fake premise. Let them use a rational premise and the liberalism falls off from the whole Church.
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.-
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
_______________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2021.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively invisible in 2021.
___________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2021.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown cases in 2021.There is no personally known case.
__________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is assuming others (in general) cannot see invisible cases in the present and the past.It is assuming that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown and invisible case in the present or past.
When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.
When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.Lionel Andrades
_____________________
L'Église
dominante est libérale aujourd'hui à cause de la
fausse prémisse. Qu'ils
utilisent une prémisse
rationnelle et le
libéralisme se détache de toute l'Église.
FAUX
PREMISSE
Lumen
Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc dans le Concile Vatican II se
réfèrent à des cas physiquement visibles en 1965-2021.
FAUSSE INFERENCE
Ce sont des exemples objectifs de salut
en dehors de l'Église.
FAUSSE CONCLUSION
Le Concile Vatican II contredit
l'interprétation stricte du dogme extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Le Athanase Credo (en dehors de l'Église il
n'y a pas de salut) et le Syllabus des Erreurs du Pape Pie IX (œcuménisme du
retour) ont été rendus obsolètes.
Voici mon interprétation du Concile
Vatican II en bleu.
PREMISSE RATIONNELLE
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc dans le Concile
Vatican II se réfèrent à des cas physiquement invisibles en 1965-2021. Ils ne
sont qu'hypothétiques et théoriques. Ils n'existent que dans notre esprit et ne
sont pas des corps solides au niveau du temps, de l'espace et de la matière de
Newton.
INFERENCE RATIONNELLE
Ce ne sont pas des exemples objectifs de
salut en dehors de l'Église pour nous, êtres humains.
CONCLUSION RATIONNELLE
Le Concile Vatican II ne contredit pas
l'EENS tel qu'il a été interprété par les jésuites au Moyen Âge.Il ne contredit
pas l'interprétation stricte de l'EENS de saint Thomas d'Aquin (sauvé dans
l'invincible ignorance est invisible), saint Augustin et le père Léonard Feeney
de Boston.
La Lettre du Saint-Office (Congrégation
pour la Doctrine de la Foi) 1949 a commis une erreur objective.
PREMISSE IRRATIONELLE
La prémisse irrationnelle est que des
choses ou des personnes invisibles sont visibles.
PREMISSE RATIONALELLE
La prémisse rationnelle est que les choses ou les personnes invisibles sont visibles.
PREMISSE IRRATIONELLE
La prémisse irrationnelle est que des cas hypothétiques sont objectivement visibles en 2021.
PREMISSE RATIONALELLE
La prémisse rationnelle est que les cas hypothétiques sont objectivement invisibles en 2021.
PREMISSE IRRATIONELLE
La prémisse irrationnelle est que le baptême de désir se réfère à des cas personnellement connus en 2021.
PREMISSE RATIONALELLE
La prémisse rationnelle est que le baptême de désir fait référence à un cas inconnu en 2021. Il n'y a pas de cas personnellement connu.
PREMISSE IRRATIONELLE
La prémisse irrationnelle suppose qu'il y a des cas objectivement vus et connus d'être sauvés dans une ignorance invincible et sans le baptême d'eau en 2021.
PREMISSE RATIONALELLE
La prémisse rationnelle suppose que les autres (en général) ne peuvent pas voir les cas invisibles dans le présent et le passé. Elle suppose que le baptême de désir se réfère à un cas inconnu et invisible dans le présent ou le passé.
Quand une prémisse irrationnelle est utilisée, je l'appelle Cushingisme.
Quand il y a une prémisse rationnelle, je l'appelle Feeneyisme.-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 22, 2021
_______________________________________________
Posts
Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column?
LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit or explicit for us.
hypothetical or known in reality.
invisible or visible in the flesh.
dejure(in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).