Tuesday, January 4, 2022
Vatican Council II is still the issue. But now it is the Franciscans of the Immaculate who must ask Cardinal Braz de Avez to affirm the Council
It is the Franciscans of the Immaculate who must appeal to Cardinal Braz de Avez to please accept Vatican Council II. Please, please accept Vatican Council II, he must be told, and interpret it with the Rational Premise. The bishops and priests must be asked to not offer Holy Mass in the parish at Casalotti, Boccea, while rejecting de fide teachings of the Church, with a False Premise. Do not offer Holy Mass while still supporting mortal sins of faith in public. Do not allow new vocations to read books on Vatican Council II at the pontifical universities, when they use the False Premise and ignore the rational option. Catholics must know that choosing Vatican Council II, irrational or rational, is a political decision. Vatican Council II (Irrational) supports the Left.
New vocations for the Franciscan Sisters
of the Immaculate must be told to interpret Vatican Council II only with the
Rational Premise.
Sister Francesca of the Franciscan
Sisters of the Immaculate, whom Fr. Alponso refers to as a ‘crypto Lefebvrist’
could ask him to affirm Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise
and support Catholic Tradition, according to his religious formation.
Vatican Council II (Rational) and
Catholic Tradition are compatible. Conservatives do not have a problem. The
Council is no where a rupture with Tradition when LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc,
do not contradict the past ecclesiocentrism.Outside the Church there is no
salvation was the theological basis for proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ
the King, in all political life. The priority was to save souls from Hell and
now we know that there are no exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
But new vocations to the religious life
are being forced to accept Vatican Council II with the False Premise. Then they
have to accept a false break with the past exclusivist ecclesiology. But that
exclusivist ecclesiology has not changed since 1965, for the Catholics who
avoid the False Premise. There is no pre and post Vatican Council II
ecclesiology. Since the ecclesiology does not depend upon the Latin Mass but
the Rational Premise. There are no ‘reforms of Vatican Council II’ at the
Byzantine Greek Mass when the priest interprets Vatican Council II in harmony
with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla
salus.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate left the diocese in Boccea, Rome silently when Pope Francis closed the seminary, banned the Latin Mass and prohibited their lay Third Order, the issue was ‘crypto Lefebvrism’ according to Fr. Alfonso Bruno fi, who was appointed the new Secretary General. The FSSP at Dijon, France also left the diocese silently, without pointing out the Specific Error in Vatican Council II, which Pope Francis and Bishop Roland Minnerath , follow.
SPECIFIC ERROR OF THE COUNCIL FATHERS
The Specific Error in Vatican Council II
is the use of the False Premise by the Council Fathers (1965). They interpreted
the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the False Premise and then projected practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. Invisible cases were
projected as being visible exceptions for the traditional ecclesiocentrism of
the Church.The mistake was first over looked in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 by Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed and then at Vatican Council II by Pope Paul VI and the popes who followed.
When we are aware of their Specific
Error created with the False Premise we can avoid it. When we avoid the
Specific Error and re-interpret Vatican Council II rationally, with the
Rational Premise, the Council becomes an ally. It’s the end of liberalism which
depended upon the Specific Error to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.
Taylor Marshall have found the Specific Error in Vatican Council II. They know
what creates the New Theology and the break with Tradition. It is the False
Premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the Red Right Hand Side Irrational Column to
interpret Vatican Council II and so supports the Specific Error. He ignores it.
It supports his liberalism. If he chose to interpret the Council with the Blue
Left Hand Side Rational Column he would return to Tradition.
There is now 1) the non traditional conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, of Bishop Roland Minnerath, the FSSP and Fr. Alfonso Bruno and 2) there is my traditional and rational conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
It is the same Vatican Council II before us but there are two interpretations.Since I am aware of the Specific Error of the Council Fathers, I avoid it.
The FSSP Superior General, the Ecclesia Dei communities and the Latin laity in general, do not interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and expose the bad theology of Bishop Roland Minnerath.It is the same situation in the diocese of Porto Santa Rufina, Rome, with the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
The issue is still Vatican Council II. But now it is the Franciscans of the
Immaculate who must ask Cardinal Braz de Avez to affirm the Council.-Lionel Andrades
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 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
Posts
