Sedevacantist Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise creates a break with Tradition and does not know that Archbishop Lefebvre did the same.

Sedevacantist Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise creates a break with Tradition and does not know that Archbishop Lefebvre did the same.He along with Fr. Anthony Cekada was a critic of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Now with the False Premise the bishop is a modernist. Since with the Fake Premise he creates a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc, just like Archbishop Lefebvre. If he did  not use the False Premise he would have to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, like Fr. Leonard Feeney. - Lionel Andrades

Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara support heresy and schism

Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara interpret the Athanasius Creed( all need Catholic faith for salvation) with the False Premise ( not all need to enter the Church, there are practical exceptions of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc).They use the common invisible-non-Christians-are-visible premise to interpret Vatican Council II . The result is schism with the past Magisterium (Creeds, Catechisms, EENS etc).It’s public heresy ( practical exceptions are projected for the traditional interpretation of the Nicene Creed). The Nicene Creed is changed to “I believe in three or more known baptisms…, which exclude the baptism of water and so they are practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism, for EENS etc” .This is division in the Church. They justify this by assuring every one that they are obedient to Pope Francis and the ADL.

In the past the Magisterium  taught that outside the Church there is no salvation. Now they follow Pope Francis and say outside the Church there is salvation (Lefebvre exceptions for EENS etc).This cannot be Magisterial. The one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ( Nicene Creed) cannot teach two different things.

The dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope  Pius IX is also covered with the invisible-visible deception. No more do they criticize Pope Francis as in the past.

We have traditionalists who break with Tradition and they do it in public with their invisible people are visible confusion.It keeps them politically correct with the Left and the liberals and this is important for them.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider  and Dr. Taylor Marshall interpreted the baptism of desire (LG 14) with the Rational Premise. Mattei and Ferrara  avoid this. Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who also did  not use the Rational Premise, they maintain doctrinal division.

Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara are Cushingites and not Feeneyites.With the Fake Premise they mislead people.Like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict  their priority is pleasing those who matter.So in turn they are allowed to speak at conferences and write Cushingite books. This is not our Catholic identity.

They wrote books on Vatican Council II interpreted  with the Fake Premise and then placed the blame for their non traditional conclusion  on the Council.With the Rational Premise, Vatican Council II would emerge Feneeyite and they would have a reputation they don't want. 

Bishop Roland Minnerath in Dijon, France was given a free pass, since his weak point in theology was also theirs. The could not expose it.

I affirm Church Documents but interpret them rationally.Mattei and Ferrara cannot say the same. Archbishop Lefebvre made a theological and doctrinal mistake with the Fake Premise and now Mattei and Ferrara cannot defend him.It was the same mistake of Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger.

Many times they have mentioned that Yves Congar, Karl Rahner and others were present at Vatican Council II. So what if they were present  ? With the Rational Premise the Council is Feeneyite. It is dogmatic and ecclesiocentric.

They should not give talks and organise conferences in which they fake the intepretation of Vatican Council II etc to produce the rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q,27Q etc) and then suggest that they obediently follow Pope Francis and the mainstream  Church. So they have the approval of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

They do not admit their error even after being informed. They could choose to accept Magisterial Documents ( Syllabus, Catechism of Pope Pius X etc) like me, in harmony with Tradition( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on EENS, Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed etc).

Instead they prefer the political version of Vatican Council II and Church teachings, which are mortal sins of faith. 

Changing the understanding of the Creeds is a mortal sin in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II ( Ad Tuendem Fidem). - Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 21, 2021

Christocentric and not Ecclesiocentric Missionary Vigil will be held today evening at the basilica St.John Lateran, Rome. Lay and religious from different Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church, will opt to go to foreign lands and share their faith in Jesus Christ.These are not traditional Catholic missionaries who were ecclesiocentric and Feeneyite.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/christocentric-and-not-ecclesiocentric.html

 OCTOBER 21, 2021

I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/i-affirm-church-teachings.html

OCTOBER 21, 2021

The pope cannot interpret Vatican Council II schismatically and expect the Ecclesia Dei communities and the rest of the Church to do the same. The pope is rejecting the rational interpretation of the Council. The Council interpreted rationally or irrationally is now an issue in the Church. We now have official heresy. There is official schism with the past Magisterium. Courtelain did not mention this point : Review the LA interpretation of Vatican Council II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-pope-cannot-interpret-vatican.html

APRIL 13, 2018

There is no apology or correction from Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara for the books they wrote on Vatican Council II.They need to apologise for their ignorance, which was innocent.

There is no apology or correction from Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara for the books they wrote on Vatican Council II.They need to apologize for their ignorance, which was innocent.There was no one there to correct them at that time.But now they know and should clarify that it was an error.

Now they know that if the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) refers to invisible or visible cases, decides how Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) will be interpreted.

Since BOD,BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II became an exception to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.LG 8, LG 16 etc were considered visible people known to be saved outside the Catholic Church. It was initially wrongly assumed, by Mattei and Ferrara,that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to visible cases, exceptions to EENS.

This was an irrational premise.

For me BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions or relevant to traditional EENS, since for me they refer to hypothetical cases, they are abstract images, speculation,theories.They are not concrete and real people.They can only be real and known in Heaven.So since they do not exist in the present times on earth they cannot be exceptions to EENS.The liberal theologians made a mistake.Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice it.
So in the books on Vatican Council II written by Ferrara and Mattei, Vatican Council II is projected as a rupture with Tradition since the writers mixed up what is invisible and as being visible.They then projected these unknowable people as being known examples of salvation outside the Church.
When they wrote their books, Vatican Council II could also have been projected as a continuity with Tradition and the dogma EENS.
So the Magisterium of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), made a mistake at that time.Since the CDF Prefect assumed that unknown people were known it was an objective mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven saved, were visible on earth, it was a factual mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven were also present on earth at the same time,he violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The same mistake unknowingly, was made by Christopher Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Attila Guimares, Michael Davies and Diterich von Hildebrand in their books and articles.
In their books they were saying that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.This was true.Since a false premise is used.The educated Catholic recognizes the non traditional conclusion.
Even Pope John Paul II was aware of the rupture with Tradition.However what was not known to also Fr.John Hardon, Fr. William Most, Monsgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and other good apologists, was that the actual false premise was visible for us BOD,BOB and I.I and it caused the rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, past ecclesiology etc).
Now that Ferrara and Mattei know, there must be an apology or correction from them.Soon there will be the summer conferences of the traditionalists where the same error will be repeated,like in former years, even after being informed.-Lionel Andrades

 APRIL 12, 2018

Like the liberals Roberto dei Mattei uses an irrational premise to interpret the baptism of desire etc. So there is a new version of EENS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/like-tbe-liberals-roberto-dei-mattei.html

APRIL 12, 2018

Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html

APRIL 12, 2018

Repost : So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but with the traditionalist interpretation of the Council by using Cushingite instead of Feeneyite theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-so-fault-does-not-lie-with.html

 APRIL 12, 2018

Repost : Vatican needs to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-vatican-needs-to-apologise-for.html

APRIL 12, 2018

Repost : Books of Archbishop Lefebvre are obsolete now : so are the writings on Vatican Council II by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-books-of-archbishop-lefebvre-are.html

APRIL 12, 2018

Repost : No contradiction or correction from Roberto dei Mattei

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-no-contradiction-or-correction.html

DECEMBER 12, 2017

Neither is Roberto dei Mattei nor Maike Hickson willing to affirm the old ecclesiology of the Church with Feeneyite EENS and with such a big doctrinal and theological divide among us they are talking about the pope being in heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/neither-is-roberto-dei-mattei-not-maike.html

APRIL 12, 2018

Repost : The traditionalists in general have made an error.They have made a major error in theology and doctrine

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-traditionalists-in-general-have.html

APRIL 12, 2018

Repost : I am waiting for Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, Robero dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara to affirm Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of EENS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-i-am-waiting-for-cardinal-burke.html

APRIL 11, 2018

Roberto dei Mattei still cannot state that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Neither will he affirm the dogma EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-still-cannot-state.html

APRIL 4, 2018

Repost : Father Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari were also unknowingly following the new theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-father-nicholas-gruner-and-john.html

APRIL 4, 2018

Repost : Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-frnicholas-gruner-and-john.html

 APRIL 4, 2018

Repost : Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and Fr.Nicholas Gruner express the new theology on Vatican Council II : it has a factual error, an objective mistake http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-christopher-ferrara-john-vennari.html

APRIL 4, 2018

Repost : If we eliminate the 'known exceptions' theory, Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Kasper would have to admit that there is no change in doctrine : Vatican Council II supports the 16th century Jesuit missionaries

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-if-we-eliminate-known-exceptions.html

APRIL 4, 2018

Repost : There is only one cause for the confusion. It has to be identified and corrected and then we have the old theology at Mass.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-there-is-only-one-cause-for.html

 APRIL 4, 2018

Repost :John Vennari assumes being saved in invincble ignorance is an exception to the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-john-vennari-assumes-being-saved.html

APRIL 4, 2018

Repost : There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio : more mistakes by John Vennari

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-there-being-exceptions-is.html

_________________________

_________________________

 OCTOBER 23, 2021

Vatican Council II is dogmatic and ecclesiocentric

 JUNE 11, 2021

Vatican Council II is dogmatic

 

 

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II.

1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.

 

2.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?

It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.

 

3.Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked? 

No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).

 

4.How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?

He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.

 

5.Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?

No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.

 

6.What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).

 

7.What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.

 

8.Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

 

9.What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.

’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.

For the present two popes and the traditionalists the red is an exception to the blue. This is irrational.

 

10.What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?

Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.

Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.

 

11.What is the essence of this interpretation?

It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies  two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.

Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.  

 Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.

12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?

Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). 

 Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc.  cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes  7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.

When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.

Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.

Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.

So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades

Fake premise

Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

 

Fake inference

They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

 

Fake conclusion

Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

 

 

Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

 

Rational Premise

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

 

Rational Inference

They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

 

Rational Conclusion

Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.

The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/there-is-no-denial-from-congregation.html   

Lionel Andrades

Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.

Catholic lay man in Rome,

Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.

It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.

Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

___________________

OCTOBER 21, 2021

I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS

 

I affirm Church Teachings and Documents. Vatican Council II is an ally

 

I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS 

When Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise the Council is an ally. We can affirm Tradition along with Vatican Council II.

I affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.

I AVOID THE CONFUSION

Today's  Christocentric missionaries will interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 29Q ( invincible ignorance) as being a practical exception to 24Q and 27Q ( outside the Church no salvation) in the same Catechism. They are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.

For Feeneyites  29 Q ( invincible ignorance) is only a hypothetical case. So LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and  baptism for salvation).

Also the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict the same Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846 ( AG 7 - all need faith and baptism for salvation.)

Cardinal Tagle's Cushingite missionaries, will also welcome other Christians, Protestans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, even if they officially believe  contraception and abortion are not mortal sins. The false New Evangelisation, presents Jesus in a new Church, without the necessity of the traditional faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church of St. Ignatius of Loyola.

With the Rational Premise, Pope Francis and Cardinal Tagle  could affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics ( Quas Primas ). Since the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents, would have returned  to ecclesiocentrism. There would no more be a rupture with the Principle of Non Contradiction ( baptism of desire cases are visible in Heaven and on earth at the same time and so they are practical exceptions to EENS), of Aristotle.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021. They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also irrational and non Magisterial.

CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. 

Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.

ATHANASIUS CREED

Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.I  do not know of any practical exception in the present times.

DOGMA EENS

I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since they can only be hypothetical, always.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism.

Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.

NICENE CREED

In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible. I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.

FOUR MARKS OF THE CHURCH

So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational premise.

APOSTLES CREED

In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS DOGMATIC

Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8, LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.

For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in 1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC 

Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism. 

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

The footnotes of Dignitatis Reditigratio, Vatican Council II refer to the Church in a secular state.With Vatican Council II ecclesiocentric and dogmatic, the Council would be an ally for a Catholic Government in a Catholic State. It would be important for the pope to be a Catholic to save their soul, since Vatican Council II is also saying outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation( Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).The Catholic Government may choose to grant religious liberty to non Catholics as during the time of the Papal States in Europe. The roots of Europe are Catholic and not Christian, unless it refers to the Catholic Church.

COLLEGIALITY, SYNODALITY

Collegiality and Synodality are not an issue when Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since in a Synod all wold have to interpret the Council with the Rational Premise and the so support the past ecclesiocentrism of the Syllabus of Errors, EENS, Catechisms of Trent and Pius X etc.

TRADITIONAL MISSION

Since Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric we are back to Traditional Mission according to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Every one with no known exception needs to enter the Catholic Church, with no mortal sin at the time of death, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).

The New Evangelisation of Pope Benedict rejects ecclesiocentrism when it interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise. So the Church becomes Christocentric without remaining Ecclesiocentric as in the past.

It is only with ecclesiocentrism that there is a return to Traditional Mission. To save souls from going to Hell it is necessary  to have a Catholic Government in a Catholic State like Italy.The present secular, liberal or Communist states are Satanic.They are supported by Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise which says outside the Church there is known salvation.So every one does not have to be Catholic to go to Heaven is the new teaching of George Soros and the Rotschild family.They present a Council which presents exceptions for EENS.

So there is no real evangelization in Europe.Since in Europe people know about Jesus but they are not being told by the Church that it is necessary to believe in Jesus, while being a member of the Catholic Church, with Catholic faith and the baptism of water, for salvation ( to avoid Hell ).

Now with radio and television even people in the poor countries  of Asia and Africa know about Jesus but they do know tht he is the unique and only Saviour, who saves people  from Hell in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church according to the Bible is His Mystical Body.

SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING

The Catholic Identity Conference held recently mentions the Social Reign of Christ the King while interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise this is contradictory.It also mentions George Soros when the interpretation of the Council by the Lefebvrists is approved by George Soros and the Rothschilds.

Catholics are not told that outside the Church there is no salvation and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.So Catholics should vote for a Political Party which supports the Social Reign of Christ the King in politics.Christ must be the center of all politics. Christ must not restricted to the liturgy.

When Vatican Council II supports the dogma EENS which says outside the Church there is no salvation then Catholics have an obligation to support a Catholic political party or candidate, who interprets the Council rationally.

 Traditional Mission in the Church can only return when the Lefebvrists, Thucs  and others interpret Magisterial Documents with the Rational Premise and avoid the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

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.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

This irrationality is accepted by both the present two popes . So we have a political Left interpretation of the Council. There are two interpretations, one with the False Premise above and the other with the Rational Premise, which avoids the mistake above.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire be objective exceptions to the practical teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

This irrationality is accepted by both the present two popes . So we have a political Left interpretation of the Council. There are two interpretations, one with the False Premise above and the other with the Rational Premise, which avoids the mistake above.How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire be objective exceptions to the practical teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation. 

TRADITIONIS CUSTODE AND VATICAN COUNCIL II.

A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together  to listen and to discern the path of the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who excercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Pietro et sub Pietro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself, who guides the Church.-Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies, Traditionis Custode.

Pope Francis calls Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit.

How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14 ( baptism of desire) and LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) for example ?

For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021.This is something obvious.

How can LG 14, LG 16, etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how Pope Francis and the Masons interpret Vatican Council II.It is different from  rational way. I interpret the Council. I consider the interpretations of Vatican Council II with the rational premise as being Magisterial.It is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.

With Traditional Mission and ecclesiocentrism the Catholic political parties can proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics  and the non separation of Church and State, as a priority to save souls from Hell.

These are the teachings and documents of the Catholic Church which I affirm.  -Lionel Andrades

__________________

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/i-affirm-church-teachings.html