They are having a conversation with
Bishop Barron choosing to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and
not Rational Premise: this must be noted
by all his future speakers.-Lionel
Andrades
Thursday, December 9, 2021
They are having a conversation with Bishop Barron choosing to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise: this must be noted by all his future speakers
Bishop Robert Barron wants the young to continue to do the same
Bishop Robert Barron, Auxiliary bishop of the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, was elected chairman-elect of the Committee on
Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth since he interprets Vatican Council II with the False and Rational Premise.This is his testimony to the young. He wants them to continue to do the same.-Lionel Andrades
Alberto Melloni is dishonest. He uses a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Alberto
Melloni is dishonest. He uses a False Premise to interpret Vatican
Council II.-Lionel Andrades
APRIL 20, 2021
Almost all the TV Stations in Italy have had to interview Alberto Melloni and project his non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise
Almost all the TV Stations in Italy have had to interview Alberto Melloni and project his non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise. - Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 26, 2021
The new Italian Prime Minister Mario Dragi accepts Prof. Alberto Melloni's official interpretation of Vatican Council II which is dishonest
The new Italian Prime Minister Mario Dragi accepts Prof. Alberto Melloni's official interpretation of Vatican Council II which is dishonest.
Melloni like Dragi unethically uses a false premise to make Vatican Council II emerge as a rupture with the Italy's popes and saints over history. -Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 7, 2020
If Prof. Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise of the New Theology, the Italian Government may not continue to finance him.He would be taking the Catholic Church back to Tradition
If Prof. Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise of the New Theology, the Italian Government may not continue to finance him.He would be taking the Catholic Church back to Tradition. -Lionel Andrades
John XXIII Foundation for Religious Sciences (FSCIRE), the "Bologna School, interprets Vatican Council II with the common false premise.There is no transparency on this issue
FEBRUARY 22, 2020
The Italian government is funding Alberto Melloni's John XXIII Foundation for Religious Sciences (FSCIRE), the headquarters of the so-called "Bologna School,"1 guaranteed another yearly million-euro funding for 2020–2022.Melloni uses the irrational model to interpret Vatican Council II. It is only with a false premise, inference and conclusion that he makes the Council a rupture with Tradition. He could choose the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
_________________________________________
___________________________________________
With this rational model, the Vatican, the Bologna School, Archbishop Pegro and Cardinal Matteo Zuppi , would not be contradicting the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
ATHANASIUS CREED
'Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly...'
___________________________________
___________________________________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2020
Pope Francis interprets the Creeds with a false premise, inference and conclusion. This was un precedented over the centuries.
Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII and the following popes, interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with a false premise.Pope Paul VI and the following popes interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise.
Now Pope Francis interprets the Creeds and Vatican Council Ii with the false premise and so creates a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition on ecumenism, traditional ecclesiocentic mission, liturgy with the old exclusivist ecclesiology and traditional ecclesiology.It's a different Catholic Church now.The whole Church is following him in the error, conservatives and liberals.
Bishop Schneider, Maike Hickson and John Henry Weston continue to interpret LG 8 and UR 3 in Vatican Council II as exceptions to EENS. Bishop Bernard Fellay did this continously. He never corrected himself. He probably will go to the end of his life, with this error, like Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari.
If the popes interpret the Creeds without the false premise, like me, they would be opposed by the Jewish Left.There would be persecution.Now there is support.
The two popes do not affirm the Creeds to avoid a persecution of the Church. They have changed the faith-teachings of the Church.
So the official Profession of Faith and Oath of Office for Cardinals, Bishops, Rectors, Superiors and Parish Priests are mere words supporting heresy and dissent.-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________
Both groups need to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and then there will be no break with Tradition and there will be doctrinal and theological coherence and unity
The U.S bishops interpret Vatican
Council II with the Fake Premise and so accept the non traditional conclusion
and the American priests of the Society of St. Pius X do the same but reject the
non traditional conclusion. There is no doctrinal unity there.
Both groups need to interpret Vatican
Council II with the Rational Premise and then there will be no break with
Tradition and there will be doctrinal and theological coherence and unity.-Lionel Andrades
Vatican Council II interpreted with a Rational Premise must be taught at Catholic schools and in the parishes for First Communicants and pontifical universities in Rome, proclaimed in homilies, in Catholic hospitals and the media
I mentioned in a previous blog post (Dec.8,2021) that I have the legal religious freedom and right to follow and practice my Roman Catholic religion in Rome based upon Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I use a Rational Premise, to interpret these two Magisterial Documents and everyone else here unknowingly chooses an irrational premise.
A.So for me LG 8, LG 14 LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only in 2021 and so are not exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, 16th century EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
B.For the Parish Priests and Rectors LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc refer to non hypothetical, objective cases, visible non Catholics saved outside the Church, without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are made physically visible and practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (24Q, 27Q). The Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition are made obsolete by them. This is a political interpretation of Vatican Council II and it is dishonest. The False Premise (hypothetical cases are objective in 2021) is unethical.
First Communicants at the mainstream Catholic churches in Italy must have the same religious freedom as me. They have to be taught that every needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and that other religions are not paths to Heaven according to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All need faith and the baptism of water. Without Catholic faith and the baptism of water people go to Hell (CCC 1257,845,846).This is the official teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church when Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents are interpreted rationally. This is the Magisterium of the Church according to Church Documents, Magisterial Documents. This is the Magisterium of Church Documents in harmony with the past Magisterium which all Catholics are obliged to follow, including ecclesiastics.
The children must be taught to interpret Magisterial Documents rationally like me in A above and not irrationally like the parish priests and rectors, like B, above.It should be the same at Catholic schools and educational institutions, parish catechesis and at the pontifical unversities. It is A and not B which must be proclaimed in homilies in the Catholic churches, at Catholic hospitals and in the media and communication.
I have mentioned in a previous blog post ( Dec.7,2021) that when I say that in Heaven there are only Catholics I am citing Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally. I am not depending on pre-1930 Church Documents.So this is the present teaching of the Catholic Church according to Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally and not just a personal opinion.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation while LG 16 (invincible ignorance) and LG 14 ( the baptism of desire) are not exceptions for AG 7 for me, since they refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 1965-2021. Ad Gentes 7 is also mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 under the title Outside the Church there is No Salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 ( The Necessity of Baptism) also states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. If there are exceptions because 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' ( CCC 1257) then these cases, could only be known to God and so on earth they would not be practical exceptions for us human beings.
So all those who are in Heaven are there with
Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
If there are people saved in invincible ignorance, in Heaven, they would be Catholic. God would have sent a preacher to baptize them as explained St. Thomas Aquinas,who held the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation. Or, God would have sent them back to earth to be baptized with water as was the experience of St. Francis Xavier and other saints.But the norm for salvation is 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) and not the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, or Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3, Gaudium et Specs 22 etc. Vatican Council II ( rational ) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( rational) for me is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors with no known exceptions, and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.
For me in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 29 Q (invincible ignorance) does not contradict 24Q and 17 Q ( outside the Church there is no salvation).
The Catholic Church officially teaches today in its Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally that in Heaven there are only Catholics, outside the Church there is no salvation and all need the Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell).This is the teaching guided by the Holy Spirit in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is not just a private view, someone’s personal opinion.
This may not be the theological political position of the present two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith however this message is there in the text of the Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger When the present two popes interpret these Magisterial Documents with a Fake Premise then they are not Magisterial but political. It is their private view which is a break with Tradition and the past Magisterium. So it is schismatic and heretical.
It is important for Cardinal Peter Erdo, primate in Hungary, Ambassador Edward Habsburg, at the Hungarian Embassy at the Vatican and Fr. Paul Habsburg L.C and the Legion of Christ priests and Superior General to affirm the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Austro Hungarian Empire.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/catholics-must-know-that-church-teaches.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/i-have-legal-religious-freedom-and.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-catholic-church-officially-teaches.html
DECEMBER 6, 2021
Edward Hapsburg at the Hungarian Embassy at the Vatican probably interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise like Cardinal Peter Erdo in Hungary, but his illustrious Habsburg ancestors and the Austro Hungarian Catholic Empire interpreted Magisterial Documents rationally.For them in Heaven there were only Catholics.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/edward-hapsburg-at-hungarian-embassy-at.html
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
________________
NOVEMBER 30, 2021
Bishop Bernard Fellay supported doctrinal chaos
Bishop Bernard Felly still uses the
False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance
(I.I) and so he rejects 15th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus,
which was a dogma which did not mention any exceptions.
1.So in all Magisterial Documents in which BOD and I.I are mentioned his inference and conclusion is non traditional and irrational.The dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors are made obsolete. The Catechism of Pope Pius IX would contradict itself ( 29Q ( ignorance) would contradict 24Q and 27Q ( outside the Church there is no salvation).
I avoid the False Premise in the interpretation
of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance which I accept theoretically.
So there are no practical exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation
of EENS which I affirm.BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS for me. I can
affirm BOD and I.I and also EENS. Bishop Fellay has to choose between the two
since BOD and I.I are visible exceptions for him.
2.Bishop Fellay also uses the False
Premise (hypothetical cases are practically visible n the present times) to
interpret BOD and I.I and so there are exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. It
says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. It does not
mention any exceptions.
I avoid the False Premise (invisible
people are visible) in the interpretation of BOD and I.I and so there are no
exceptions for the Athanasius Creed for me in 2021. Hypothetical cases of LG 14
(BOD) and LG 16 (I.I) do not contradict the Athanasius Creed for me. I can
affirm BOD and I.I and also the Athanasius Creed. I do not have to choose. But
for Bishop Bernard Fellay and the liberal popes it is either-or.
3.Bishop Fellay uses the False Premise (
people in Heaven are seen on earth) to interpret BOD and I.I and so he rejects
the original understanding of the Nicene Creed where it states, ‘I believe in
one baptism for the forgiveness of sins ‘and ‘I believe in one, holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church’.
I avoid the False Premise (the baptism
of desire refers to visible and known people saved) in the interpretation of
BOD and I.I.So the understanding of the Nicene Creed does not change. For
me all need one, visible baptism, the baptism of water for the forgiveness of
sins and for salvation (CCC 1257 The Necessity of Baptism). For me it is not
three visible baptisms (desire, blood and ignorance) which exclude the baptism
of water (and so are made exceptions for traditional EENS).
4.For Bishop Fellay and the SSPX it has
always been three visible baptisms. Physically invisible baptisms could not be
practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. Yet they had to promote this irrationality for political
and other reasons.
So I believe in one physically visible
baptism for the forgiveness of sins; for Sanctifying Grace and for salvation,
while Bishop Fellay believes in the existence of three or more visible
baptisms. He confuses what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being
explicit and subjective as being objective. This is a philosophical error. An
error in observation. 5.It creates a New Theology which says outside the Church
there is salvation – since there are known exceptions. The False Premise
produces a False Inference.It is with the New Theology that he interprets Vatican Council II and then rejects the expected non traditional conclusion.He does not interpret the Council with the Rational Premise which has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
5.Now he officially supports doctrinal chaos.
This was not the teaching of the
Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Medieval Fathers and the Magisterium before
the 1930’s since it is common sense that BOD and I.I are always unknown
and invisible for us human beings and
can only be known to God.
St. Thomas Aquinas held the strict
interpretation of EENS and said that if there was a man in the forest who in was in ignorance and was to be saved, God would send a preacher to him. He was
referring to a hypothetical case who would be saved with the baptism of
water.
St. Francis Xavier said that God had
sent back to earth people who had died without the baptism of water,only to be baptized
by him. He was referring to specific people who could not go to Heaven without
the baptism of water.
6.For Bishop Fellay and also for
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre there were exceptions for EENS since there were
exceptions for Pope Pius XII who accepted the False Premise in the Letter of
the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO).They both accepted the LOHO with its objective error.
The same objective mistake is made with
the use of the Fake Premise, by Bishop Joseph Pfieffer and the SSPX (Resistance)
and the sedevacantist communities of Bishop Donald Sanborn and Bishop Mark
Pivarunas. -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________
APRIL 28, 2017
Bishop Fellay does not realize that he is confused between Feeneyism and Cushingism
The dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas wrote Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).(Letters to Friends and Benefactors N.87)1 He does not realize that it is he, who is confused between Cushingism and Feeneyism in the interpretation of the dogma. That same confusion he extends to Vatican Council II.He then makes the same error in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995).
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
So when he interprets invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X he assumes it refers to a visible case and so is an exception to outside the Church no salvation ( Feeneyite).
When I interpret invincible ignorance for example, in the Catechism of Pope Pius X it refers to an invisible case.
For Father Pier Paulo Petrucci, Superior, SSPX, Italy the baptism of desire refers to a visible case. So Vatican Council II has a rupture with the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation( Feeneyite).He is a Cushingite like Bishop Bernard Fellay.
For me Lionel, the baptism of desire and blood with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church refers to a physically invisible case. So it cannot be relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.2
Bishop Bernard Fellay could also clarify that I Lionel Andrades interpret Vatican Council II without an irrational premise and so my conclusion is different from his and the SSPX bishops and priests.It is the same with the dogma EENS.
This is Vatican Council II Feeneyite for me with these diagrams.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
2.
January 12, 2016
If the SSPX bishops and Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci would admit that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases in 2016, the entire interpretation of Vatican Council changes : error in the article
Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci, Superior General,SSPX ,Italy makes the familiar SSPX error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/fr-pier-paolo-petrucci-superior.html
JULY 20, 2015
No response from Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX Italy) : doctrinal messhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/no-response-from-fraternita-sacerdotale.html
________________________________________________________
October 18, 2012
FATHER NIKLAUS PFLUGER IN FIRST CLASS HERESY ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/father-niklaus-pfluger-in-first-class.html
October 19, 2012
RAMPANT HERESY IN THE SSPX
SSPX DISTRICT ITALY CONFERENCE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TO USE THE FALSE PREMISE
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/repost-bishop-fellay-does-not-realize.html
_____________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and conclusion : there is an option, a rational conclusion of which he is unaware of.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/bishop-bernard-fellay-interprets.html
September 25, 2016
Bishop Fellay's understanding and interpretation of Vatican Council II is heretical.
September 11, 2016
Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on invisible cases being visible, what is not seen as being seen
June 14, 2016
SSPX doctrinal position is politically correct and heretical : Bishop Fellay interprets EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times.
June 11, 2016
Apologists Mons. Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr. John Hardon considered implicit cases as being explicit: traditionalists agree any one who does this is wronghttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/apologists-mons-clifford-fenton.html
____________________________________________
CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER : SEES HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES.
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Register http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur
ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DO NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS.
I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR
___________________________
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/
________________________________________________________
http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/
________________________________________________________
Here are the controversial passages again
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/here-are-controversial-passages-again.html
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
