Saturday, April 30, 2022
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a False Premise to create a break with the Syllabus of Errors. This is being dishonest. He needs to correct the mistake
Pope Francis interprets
Vatican Council II with the False Premise and not the Rational Premise. This is
dishonest.
By confusing what is invisible as being visible: the common irrationality, he interprets the Council-text. Then he produces an artificial break with Tradition. This was also done by Pope Benedict. His bad theology depended upon the False Premise. The result was modernism and liberalism, which was approved by the Left.
CATHOLICS DO NOT KNOW THEOLOGY
But the rank and file
Catholic who do not know this deceptive theology, also did not know the
Catholic Faith. Catholics were told that the Church had changed its teachings
on Vatican Council II. This was not true. They were told that the Church no
more teaches the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation (extra
ecclesiam nulla salus).The dogmas have been put aside with Vatican Council II.
Bishops and theologians supported the liberalism. They said that the Syllabus
of Errors of Pope Pius IX was obsolete. This was the official narrative of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith (CDF), Vatican. But now it is known that only with the False Premise is
there a break with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Now we have a
breakthrough, a return to the past ecclesiology. We have identified the False
Premise. So now it is simple and easy to come back to the past
ecclesiocentrism.
WE CAN CREATE THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION
The False Premise is created
by confusing what is invisible as being visible. This is a fact. It is now a
given. So we can, at will, choose the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with
Tradition. We do not have to listen to the archbishops of the CDF.
The Rational Premise
which was used by the popes and saints over the centuries, and which produced
the old theology, sees invisible cases as being invisible only.
The popes from Paul VI
however have been using the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally.
They could have chosen the Rational Premise and supported Catholic Tradition.
There would be no development of doctrine.
THE COUNCIL IS ALWAYS REFERRING TO HYPOTHETICAL CASES ONLY, ALWAYS
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR
3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, always refers to hypothetical and
speculative cases only. Always. So the Council is always referring to invisible
and theoretical cases only.
There are no practical
examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church. If someone is saved as such
it would only be known to God.
So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,
UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma
EENS in 2022.There are no practical examples of salvation outside the Catholic
Church.
FALSE PREMISE USED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
However in two papers, of the International Theological Commission, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj., projected Lumen Gentium 16 etc as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. 2
They used the False Premise. LG 16 (invincible ignorance) was seen as referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This was the big one! From here
they took off with their New Theology! The SSPX had to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise, for canonical recognition. It was a doctrinal-must said Pope Benedict. 1
They were drawing upon
the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). The LOHO was referenced
in Vatican Council II with its objective mistake. It was also inserted in the
Denzinger, with the error.
THE COUNCIL FATHERS USED THE FALSE PREMISE
The Council Fathers,
Rahner, Ratzinger, Cushing etc, were using the False Premise, officially and in
public. Since the mistake was not corrected by Pope Pius XII in the LOHO. The
LOHO was issued some time after the creation of Israel as a state.
They were all
interpreting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as
referring to physically visible cases in the present times. But the baptism of
desire always refers to an unknown and hypothetical case. The norm for salvation
is faith and the baptism of water (AG 7, LG 14).It is not a visible case of the
baptism of desire. We cannot see or meet any one saved with the baptism of
desire, invincible ignorance or baptism of blood, without the baptism of water.
But it was inferred by
the popes that we humans could see these cases in real life and this was called
magisterial.
It was only because they were seen as being physically visible that they could be projected as being exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
No one saw a
St.Emerentiana in Heaven. Yes she is a saint but no one on earth could claim
that she was a practical exception for the dogma EENS. We do not know of anyone
who will go to Heaven today like Dismas the Good Thief.
So with this confusion
between what is invisible and visible, the ecclesiastics could reject the past
ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.
ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE THERE COULD BE A NEW ECUMENISM
It was only with there
being known salvation outside the Church that there could be a New Ecumenism,
since EENS was made obsolete and there was an ecumenism of return to the
Catholic Church.
Only with there being
physically visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church that there
could be a New Ecclesiology.
Since there was allegedly
known non Catholics saved outside the Church, traditional Mission, based upon
exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was rejected. Pope Benedict
indicated that Vatican Council II said that there was known salvation outside
the Church ( Avvenire). So he asked why should there be mission. Similarly the
popes no more proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics.
Vatican Council II interpreted by confusing what is invisible as being visible,
produces ‘practical exceptions’ for EENS. It is EENS which is the theological
basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all
political legislation (Quas Primas).
But Cardinal Muller as
the Prefect of the CDF did not celebrate an anniversary, a milestone for the
Syllabus of Errors. Since he rejects the Syllabus with Vatican Council II
interpreted with the False Premise.It was the same with Pope Benedict.
JESUITS DO NOT CELEBRATE ST.FRANCIS XAVIER'S 400TH ANNIVERSARY
Similarly the Jesuits did not celebrate the 400th anniversary of the canonisation of St. Francis Xavier, since there are
practical exceptions for Xavier’s concept of EENS.
Without confusing what
is invisible as being visible Pope Francis would have to affirm the strict
interpretation of EENS, like the St. Benedict Centers in the USA and the
founders of the Jesuit community.
CDF DEMANDS USE OF THE FALSE PREMISE
DISHONEST INTERPRETATION BY THE CDF
The Archbishop-Secretaries of the CDF would have to use the False Premise to be modernist, heretical and schismatic. Since only with the False Premise they do not have to affirm the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed.
The Jesuits expelled Fr.
Leonard Feeney since he would not interpret the baptism of desire etc with the
False Premise and create practical exceptions for traditional EENS. Boston
College also expelled Catholic professors, only because they would not confuse
invisible cases as being visible. Pope Francis is a Jesuit and an apology is
due.
In the Boston Heresy case it was Archbishop Richard Cushing who was using the False Premise and who was in heresy and schism and not Fr. Leonard Feeney. Today Cardinal Sean O’Malley the Archbishop of Boston still uses the False Premise to interpret Magisterial Documents.
The use of the False Premise i.e. confusing what is invisible as being visible and then inferring that there are practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc, is dishonest. -Lionel Andrades
1
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
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. Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
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.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
Friday, April 29, 2022
I am not against any religion or people. I am affirming the Catholic Faith in Rome. I am citing Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
I am not against any religion or people.
I am affirming the Catholic Faith in Rome. I am citing Vatican Council II
interpreted rationally. I am quoting the Bible, Tradition and past Magisterium in harmony with Vatican Council II (Rational). So when the present two popes
interpret Vatican Council II rationally, then they both will be in harmony with
Tradition and the past Magisterium. My writings are in accord with the
centuries-old Magisterium and so in this sense they are Magisterial. When the
present two popes interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise, they choose
the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. They
create an artificial break with Catholic Tradition (Syllabus of Errors of Pope
Pius IX, Athanasius Creed etc).
Other religions have good and holy things in them (Nostra Aetate 2) and theoretically could be paths to salvation (Unitatis Redintigratio 3) but practically, outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14). So all need faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell (for salvation).This is Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
It is important to make the theoretical-practical distinction; otherwise the Council-text would be confusing. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, Bishop Peter Libasci the bishop of Manchester, USA and Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, diocese of Manchester, do not make this distinction.
So with this confusion they have issued a Decree of Precepts and Prohibition, against Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior, at the St. Benedict Center (SBC), New Hampshire, USA.
With the False Premise they have changed Catholic theology and doctrine, specifically, on Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Fr. Georges de Laire has also filed a
defamation case against Michael Voris
who visited New Hampshire and interviewed Brother Andre Marie, for
Church Militant TV. Voris was against the Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions.
The legal activity in New Hampshire is being reported by Christopher White for the National Catholic Reporter, Simcha and Damien Fischer in New Hampshire and the Catholic Herald, U.K. They use the same False Premise to interpret Magisterial Documents of the Catholic Church. The reports in the media criticize the St. Benedict Center. Since unlike the Society of St. Pius X and the sedevacantists CMRI etc who attend/ offer the Latin Mass only, the St.Benedict Center chooses the only the Rational Premise.
The Vortex: Attacking the Good Guys
All of the terms narrated in the bullet points you reference on page 3 of your aforesaid letter have indeed been reported to us by other canon lawyers, including one source
Brother Andre Marie interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with the Rational Premise and not the Irrational Premise. In an interview with Timothy Flanders of the blog 1Peter5, he said that we must not confuse speculative and practical theology. This was a common error today.
For Brother Andre Marie MICM there is no
change in Catholic theology and doctrine and the St. Benedict Center accepts Vatican
Council II ( Rational ).They have also posted their doctrinal beliefs on the Catholicism.org
website of the religious community,
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
For the founder of this community, Fr.
Leonard Feeney, unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance, were not known and practical exceptions for the
traditional, strict interpretation of EENS, according to the Patristic period.
The pope and saints over the centuries
used the Rational Premise in the interpretation of the Creeds, Catechisms, the
dogma EENS etc.
However the judiciary, secular and
religious organizations in Boston, and the rest of New England, USA, today, are
using the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS. So they
irrationally create a break with Catholic Tradition.
Now the Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions issued by Fr. Georges de Laire and also his statements given to the liberal media, can be questioned. Since he assumes that invisible cases referred to in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc in Vatican Council II, are physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. He then infers that since they are physically visible, they are practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, as held by the popes and saints over the centuries.
So Vatican Council II is a break and not continuity with Tradition, for him.
He is supported in this objective error by Pope Francis, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF and the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB). The lay people follow the factual error. They do not understand this complex and deceptive theology. The popes from Paul VI did not correct this mistake or clarify the teachings of Vatican Council II, interpreted with the Rational Premise. So there is confusion among the ecclesiastics.
It could be mentioned that when they assume that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible, it is a Fake Premise. If for example, they assumed that a white cat was a brown dog, their premise would be wrong.
The
False Premise however is a norm among the Curia and laity in the diocese of
Manchester. There is no denial from Mary Ellen Mahon, a member of the Curia and
Director of Education and Catechesis, New Hampshire. Similarly for Fr. Matthew
Mason, Director of Vocations, only those candidates are to be accepted, who interpret
Vatican Council II irrationally.
Young Catholics have to consider the
dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed, as being obsolete and then they can become priests or religious sisters.
But for Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson,
former American Nuncio to Switzerland, there are no known cases of the baptism
of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in our human reality. If
there was any such case it could only be known to God.
Similarly the apologist John Martignoni,
the Director at the Office of Evangelization and Stewardship, in the diocese of
Birmingham in Alabama, USA, says that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, are “zero cases”. They are not
practical exceptions for EENS.This is also the reasoning of Fr. Stefano
Visintin OSB, former Rector and Dean of Theology at the Benedictine, University
of St. Anselm, and Rome. This is something obvious said Fr. Aldo Rossi, the
Prior of the Society of St. Pius X, at Albano, Italy.
They indicate that the media reports on the
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center, New
Hampshire, were written with an objective and factual error. The reports confused
what is unknown and invisible as being known and visible. This was an objective
mistake. The same mistake was made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the
Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center
(LOHO). The LOHO confused unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible
ignorance as being known exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This was the objective
mistake of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the archbishop of Boston, who placed sanctions
on Fr. Leonard Feeney.This was also the factual mistake of Boston College which
expelled Catholic professors who did not confuse what is invisible as being visible.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people saved with the baptism of
desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water,
in the Catholic Church. The American Jesuits also did an injustice to Fr.
Leonard Feeney when they expelled him from the community. They need to apologize
today.
So now all the religious communities (Franciscans,
Carmelites etc) and the sedevacantists (CMRI) in New Hampshire, have to
interpret Vatican Council II and EENS, with the False Premise to avoid a Decree
of Prohibition, being issued against them. Also married lay Catholics, who
consult the Judical Vicar and Tribunal, in New Hampshire, have to state that
invisible people are visible. This is the reasoning of Fr. Georges de Laire. It
is the ‘rational norm’ for the CDF and Bishop Libasci.It is being followed by
Phil Lawler and the faculty of the
How can the Judicial Vicar in Manchester, handle marriage cases when he assumes what is invisible is visible? His reality is not the same as the people in the city.
If he does not use the False Premise then he would be affirming EENS like Brother Andre Marie. So he continues with the deception and there is no Decree of Precepts issued against him.
Cardinal Sean O Malley and Bishop Peter
Libasci, are also promoting a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelization
and New Canon Law, all based upon the False Premise, which creates alleged
exceptions, for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
The basic issue is not theology but an empirical objective observation which is common for all people, even non Catholics. We cannot see people saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Someone in Heaven is not physically visible on earth.This is something objective and factual.
When the diocese infers that there are exceptions, people visible in Heaven and on earth they contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction of Aristotle.
But this is the
norm for Fr. Laire who is unethical. He campaigns against conservative Catholic organizations
and communities, who do not reject Tradition, by using a Fake Premise, False
Inference and Non Traditional Conclusion. I have e-mailed him and the Curia in
the diocese of Manchester, including Meredith Cook, the Chancellor, and there
has been no response and no denial. –Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION (GRAPHICS)
-Lionel Andrades
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
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.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
Posts
