Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. William Most, Michael Davies, Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. William Most, Michael Davies, Ludwig Ott, Fr. John Hardon and even Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know that unknown cases of the baptism of desire were not known exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)

 

Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. William Most, Michael Davies, Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. William Most, Michael Davies, Ludwig Ott, Fr. John Hardon and even Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know that unknown cases of the baptism of desire were not known exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Invisible people were not visible and so there were no practical exceptions for EENS mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II. 

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to only hypothetical cases, always. But for all of them Vatican Council II was a break with EENS and the rest of Tradition. So they imply that LG 8 etc refer to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church, for them to be practical exceptions for EENS. By confusing what is implicit as being explicit and subjective as being objective, they presumed there was known salvation outside the Church.So the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed, were made obsolete, by them.Traditionalists opposing Tradition.

Now without this error the whole Church returns to Tradition immediately since Vatican Council II becomes traditional and exclusvist.It supports the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. -Lionel Andrades

MAY 13, 2022

Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. William Most, Michael Davies, Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Archbishop Lefebvre,Archbishop Thuc, Ludwig Ott, Fr. John Hardon and even Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and the Church will overnight go traditional. Archbishop Vigano still does not know.

 Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. William Most, Michael Davies, Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Archbishop Lefebvre,Archbishop Thuc,  Ludwig Ott, Fr. John Hardon and even Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and the Church will overnight go traditional. Archbishop Vigano still does not know.

 

As I mentioned yesterday that if Pope Francis announces that LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical and speculative cases in 2022 and not actual, known people saved outside the Church, the whole Catholic Church returns to Tradition, immediately, overnight.Since he will be interpreting Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and not the common False Premise, which has spread throughout the Church like a theological epidemic.

With one simple statement he does away with the False Premise being used not only by the liberals, but also the SSPX, CMRI, MHFM, FSSP, IKSP.When I interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise the Conclusion is in harmony with the past Magisterium. So this is not a personal opinion but a Magisterial teaching.

The popes are not magisterial when they use a False Premise which I avoid. All of us are affirming Church Documents but they are using a False Premise and I avoid it. So their conclusions are non traditional and mine is traditional.

So when I say that I am Magisterial, I am referring to the text of Vatican Council II, which I interpret rationally.This is the teaching of the Church according to Vatican Council II and not a personal view.The Council is Magisterial, except for the error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Mons. Clifford Fenton and the others made a mistake.Since they did not notice the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.They accepted the New Theology based upon the Letter's mistake.They even interpreted Vatican Council II with the New Theology.

Pope Pius XII did not correct the mistake in the Letter and neither did he defend Fr. Leonard Feeney. Pope XXIII also did not lift the excommunication. Pope Paul VI did not announce that Vatican Council II was to be interpreted with a Rational Premise.

So today there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with the Rational Premise and the other with the Irrational Premise and the Conclusions are different.

It would be unethical and dishonest to continue to use the Irrational Premise to create a fake break with Catholic Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

MAY 5, 2022

If Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise then the Council becomes Traditional and he supports Tradition and the Catholic Church becomes Traditional

 If Pope Francis pinterprets Vc2 with the Rational Premise then the Council becomes Traditional and he supports Tradition, and the Church becomes Traditional.- 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?

It is unethical when the popes, cardinals and bishops choose the Irrational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents.

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

___________________