Questions on Twitter : 3.The bishops have made it quite clear that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance do exist.

 

Questions from Twitter : The bishops have made it quite clear that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance do exist.

Yes they exist only in our mind. If there was any such case it would only be known to God. For us humans, these are only hypothetical cases. Similarly for the popes and saints over the centuries, these were only hypothetical cases. They were not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it projected BOD and I.I as being objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. So now there is a New Theology which says outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation, when really there cannot be known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I. -Lionel Andrades

MAY 12, 2022

Questions on Twitter : 1. Is your interpretation of the baptism of desire subjective and not that of the Church?

 

Questions on Twitter

1.          Is your interpretation of the baptism of desire subjective and not like that of the Church?

My interpretation of the baptism of desire is rational. There can only be a rational interpretation of BOD, which is always hypothetical and speculative only. It does not refer to a physically visible person saved outside the Church in the present times. There are no objective cases of the baptism of desire. This was known in the Church for centuries. This is common knowledge. The BOD can only refer to a theoretical case and be an expression of good will. It is not a particular person seen or known. This is common sense.  

My interpretation of BOD is Magisterial in the sense it is in harmony with the past Magisterium and I do not use the False Premise ( invisible cases are visible, BOD refers to a visible person saved outside the Church).

The interpretation of the present two popes would be Magisterial when they do not use the False Premise.

They have an option. The False Premise is dishonest.  -Lionel Andrades

_______________________  

MAY 12, 2022

Questions on Twitter : 2. What about the grace-doctrine?

 

Questions on Twitter

2. What about the grace-doctrine?

God's grace is there in potential for all. As long as a person is alive on earth, he is not condemned. But if a person dies with mortal sins of faith or morals, and does not avail of the Sacrament of Confession, he chooses to be damned.

Now is the time of God’s mercy and grace which is available for those who repent and choose to follow the Gospel.

Those who are outside the Catholic Church, choose to be condemned. John 3:5 and Mark 16: 16 tell us that faith and baptism are needed for salvation. To reject or change the teachings of the Catholic Church are mortal sins of faith.

This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for centuries. It still is the teaching of the Church when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise and there is a continuity with the past exclusivist ecclesiology. So the teachings of the Church on this faith issue has not changed with Vatican Council II ( Rational).- 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

___________________

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

___________________

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 12, 2022

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.

 

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. They picked up the virus held also by Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. William Most, Ludwig Ott and Fr. John Hardon. Even Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari were not immune.

Then there were the Jesuits and the Archdiocese of Boston when Cardinal Richard Cushing, was the archbishop which had also caught the contagion. It was there in the Holy Office 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston. The mistake in that Letter, confusing what is invisible as being visible, was not corrected by Pope Pius XII. The pope also did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney in public.

Then Pope Paul VI also did not make an announcement correcting the use of the False Premise. He allowed the Council not to be interpreted with the Rational Premise. It was the same with the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ottaviani and Ratzinger, they did nothing to correct the mistake which was made official in Vatican Council II. The Letter 1949 was placed in the Denxinger, with the factual error. It was also referenced in Vatican Council II, things were so bad at that time.

Now we can change all that over night. One of the two popes simply have to announce that LG 8 etc refer to hypothetical cases only, and the whole Church will catch on and return to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church with no rupture between faith and reason.-Lionel Andrades

 MAY 12, 2022

The norm for salvation is Catholic faith and the baptism of water (AG 7, LG 14) and we do not know of any objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church today. This was not the teaching of Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. John Hardon, Fr. William Most and Ludwig Ott who interpreted Magisterial Documents with the False Premise.

 

When I meet a non Catholic I know he is oriented to Hell since the Catholic Church teaches this in Vatican Council II (Rational). The norm for salvation is Catholic faith and the baptism of water (AG 7, LG 14) and we do not know of any objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to only hypothetical cases, invisible people in 2022. So there are no practical exceptions, mentioned in Vatican Council II, for the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition.

This is the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church in harmony with the past Magisterium which was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is continuity with the de fide teachings of the past in harmony with Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents interpreted with the Rational Premise.

This was not the teaching of Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. John Hardon, Fr. William Most and Ludwig Ott who interpreted Magisterial Documents with the False Premise.

This is not the teaching of the present popes, cardinals and bishops who use the same False Premise and then project Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. The blame the Council and not their False Premise, of which they are unaware.

There are not literal cases of the baptism of desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider, while using the Rational Premise. There are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire, said Dr. Taylor Marshall, while also using the Rational Premise.

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are zero cases in our reality said the apologist John Martignoni, while also choosing the Rational Premise.Many priests in Rome have said that the baptism of desire was not an exception for Feeneyite EENS.

So we are back to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, with Mission based upon exclusive salvation. There is no New Ecumenism when Unitatis Redintigratio, the Decree on Ecumenism,in Vatican Council II, is interpreted with the Rational Premise.

So we proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since there are no exceptions for the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on salvation, which is supported by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.-Lionel Andrades

MARCH 4, 2022

If Bishop Athanasius Schneider uses the Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II he would be saying there are no exceptions in the Council-text for Feeneyite EENS

 

                                                                                                                                                                      -Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 20, 2021

Bishop Athanasius Schneider said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. This makes the New Theology obsolete. It confused what is invisble as being visible

 

                                                                                                                                                                                   -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

___________________

AVE MARIA IN ARAMAICO

A TREZE DE MAIO — procissão das velas em Fátima

Jesus Christ you are my life

The Miracle Of Our Lady Of Fatima (1952) - Catholic Film In English

Apparition of Holy Mary @ Fatima in May 13 , 1917