The present two popes interpret Vatican Council II and the Creeds, Catechisms and EENS etc with the Irrational Premise to avoid being Anti Semitic. This is not Catholic and it is political-left.With the Rational Premise there is nothing in the Council-text to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
TRADITIONALISTS CHOOSE THE FALSE PREMISE
Even the cardinals and bishops follow the ADL. The traditionalists too use the Fake Premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Feeneyite EENS to avoid being labeled Anti Semitic and have their conferences, new books and talks legally prohibited. Church Militant TV for example, often criticizes the SSPX and is politically correct with the Left but CMTV does not affirm EENS without exceptions. CMTV chooses to not affirm Vatican Council II with no exceptions for EENS.Michael Voris and Christine Niles choose not to affirm the baptism of desire as being only physically invisible and hypothetical cases in the present times. In the same way the SSPX interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the present two popes to avoid the Anti Semitic charge and have their property confiscated etc.
VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE ATHANASIUS CREED AND THE CDF NOTIFCATION ON FR.JACQUES DUPUIS SJ
I don't have property and I do not ask for donations.I affirm the strict interpretation of EENS; the Feeneyite version, hated by the Left. I can only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and Inference. This is the normal thing to do.It is honest and rational. So Vatican Council II, for me, does not contradict the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius IX ( 24Q,27Q).
The Council does not contradict the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj (2001) during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. It does not contradict the pro-ecclesiocentric-ecclesiology statements of Dominus Iesus (2000) of Pope John Paul II.I am a Feeneyite on EENS and VC2 but the popes, cardinals and bishops are Cushingites.
Cushingism produces bad fruit.It always produces the hermeneutic of rupture.Yet it is chosen by the sedevacantists Bishops Pivarunas and Sanborn.They have property.
CDF ISSUES A POLITICAL DECREE OF PROHIBITION
Feeneyism maintains the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition on VC2 and EENS when Brother Andre Marie MICM and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire choose it, as their philosophy and theology.Presently in the diocese of Manchester, USA, Bishop Libasci is a Cushingite and he is forcing the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to interpret Magisterial Documents ( Creeds etc) irrationally, as he does. He was supported with this irrationality by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and the Left.Bishop Libasci and Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar,in New Hampshire, want to remain politically correct.So they have issued a political Decree of Prohibitions against the religious community at the St.Benedict Center NH.
CDF DOES NOT CORRECT NEW YORK TIMES' RUTH GRAHAM AND ROSS DOUTHAT
The CDF has approved the St. Benedict Center in the diocese of Worcester, USA, under Bishop Robert McManus.The prior is Brother Thomas Augustine micm. Since Brother Thomas Augustine at the St.Benedict Center in Still River,MA, interprets Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise he produces the needed 'practical exceptions' for the dogma EENS. So the Feeneyites there reject Feeneyite EENS in this way. They are comfortable.The CDF does not object.
The CDF also did not object when Ruth Graham and Ross Douthat in their recent reports interpreted Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise just like Brother Peter Dimond.
The sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond reject Feeneyite EENS which they otherwise affirm,by interpreting Vatican Council II with the same irrational premise as popes Benedict and Francis.So this is the situation in the Church. The faith is being denied for political reasons.
The CDF does not correct Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn and Michael Lofton when they interpret rationally, and know they are doing it.
The CDF does not correct Bishop George Batzing, when he chooses to interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise and then justifies their Synodal Way. He follows the error of Pope Paul VI, who could have interpreted the Council rationally.
The CDF does not correct Sister Nathalie Bequart when she says that the Synods are based on the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II. She means, of course, Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 23, 2022
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney were excommunicated for their orthodoxy
From Twitter
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).He did not say that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible examples of salvation outside the Church and exceptions for EENS.
The excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was political. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre too was excommunicated for not accepting Vatican Council II with invisible cases of LG 14 and 16 being allegedly visible examples of salvation outside the Church and a break with EENS.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney were excommunicated because they did not accept the irrational and heretical interpretation of Lumen Gentium 14( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16( saved in invincible ignorance) y the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican and the Left. They both had to accept invisible people as being being visible. Then they had to infer that these were known cases.
So the CDF has issued a Decree of Prohibitions against Brother Andre Marie micm and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center, in Richmond, New Hampshire, USA, for not accepting invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.
Also the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) were not granted canonical recognition by Pope Benedict XVI, who said it was a doctrinal issue, since the SSPX had to accept Vatican Council II as a break with EENS and not a continuity with EENS. They had to confuse what is invisible as being visible, as did the popes.
The Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) of Bishop Mark Pivarunas and the Most Holy Family Monastery of Peter and Michael Dimond in the USA, are not being invited into the Church by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. Since they all have to interpret LG 14 and 16 irrationally to create a break with Feeneyite EENS, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc, as do the CDF and the present two popes.
If the Franciscans of the Immaculate would interpret Vatican Council II with invisible cases of LG 14 and 16 as being physically visible exceptions for 12th century EENS they would hold the same Cushingite doctrinal position of the CDF and the political popes.
The CMRI and MHFM cannot be invited into the Church since they are not liberals who confuse physically invisible cases as being physically visible as did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II and now Pope Francis.
So today Life Site News and the German bishops interpret Vatican Council II with invisible cases of LG 14 and 16 being visible exceptions for the 12th century strict interpretation of EENS. They are liberals and so will not receive the political excommunication of the popes.
If they affirm LG 14 and 16 as being physically invisible cases and say that they accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS they could be politically excommunicated. The present two popes have accepted Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
There is no apology from the Jesuits for expelling Fr. Leonard Feeney from their community. The Jesuits today accept LG 14 and 16 as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so Lumen Gentium 14 and 16 are objective exceptions for EENS, as , EENS was interpreted by St. Ignatius of Loyola.
The Jesuits today also accept Vatican Council II being a break with Ignatian EENS since invisible cases of LG 14 and 16 are physically visible for them. If they were invisible then they could not be objective examples of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions for EENS.
So we have a convoluted theology in the Church with what is physically invisible being mistaken as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times. This is the basis for the liberalism in faith and morals and is called 'the spirit of Vatican Council II'.
If the Franciscans of the Immaculate say physically invisible cases are invisible only they could be excommunicated for saying the obvious. There is a prohibition on saying what is invisible is only invisible. The popes follow this rule. Invisibile people are visibile?
Upholding the invisible people are visible confusion is the green pass for a Catholic to not be excommunicated. The St.Benedict Center in New Hampshire would not say this. So a Decree of Prohibitions has been issued against them. They interpret the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (II) like the saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine- and not like the CDF.
Now with 'the reverse excommunication policy' the traditionalists and those who oppose the innovation in the Synods could be placed outside the Church. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney were excommunicated for their orthodoxy.
There was a political and false excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance always refers to physically invisible cases. So how could they be practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS? -Lionel Andrades
______________________
NOVEMBER 19, 2022
Michael Lofton on Church Militant TV supports heresy and schism. It is with the False Premise that he gets his politically-correct liberalism
CAN THE CHURCH TEACH HERESY?
ANALYZING THE MAGISTERIUM.
It supports the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS in Ad Gentes 7.There are no exceptions mentioned in the Council-text for Ad Gentes 7. There are also no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II for the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. The Council supports Tradition.It is Feeneyite.
So Vatican Council II should now be of concern for the liberals and the Left. They can no more cite the Council to support their progressivism.
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and Inference and the Conclusion is dogmatic.The Council supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.
But Michael Lofton, like Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn and Patrick Coffin, interpret Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise and Inference and create a Non Traditional Conclusion which is and heretical.They were not corrected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
The CDF too interprets the Council with the same irrational premise to intentionally produce a break with Tradition.The result is politically-correct heresy and schism. This cannot be Magisterial.
HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION
The Council for me is a continuation with the past Magisterium of the Church on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. There is a continuity for me. This is my interpretation of Vatican Council II, in harmony with the past Magisterium. So for me Vatican Council II is traditional, with the old ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It is not heretical. It is Magisterial and inspired by the Holy Spirit.It is the Magisterium according to the principles, the theology and doctrines, of the pre-1949 Magisterium.The present two popes are not inspired by the Holy Spirit when they interpret the Council irrationally and un-ethically. The use of the Rational Premise must be obligatory for all Catholics, including the popes, cardinals and bishops.
CMTV SUPPORTS HERESY
I reject the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Michael Lofton, interviewed for Church Militant TV's program Micd'up. He repeats the official heresy and schism created with an Irrational Premise. This cannot be Magisterial for me. How can the Holy Spirit contradict the past Magisterium and that too with an irrational premise and inference? This is human error. This is political. It is supported by the political Left.
POPE PAUL VI COULD HAVE CHOSEN THE RATIONAL PREMISE
Pope Paul VI had a choice. He could have interpreted Vatican Council II rationally.Even Pope Pius XII could have interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance rationally.He could have corrected the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He did not do it.
FR.LEONARD FEENEY SAID THERE ARE NO VISIBLE CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying that there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. This is common sense. This was known to the saints.They did not project invisible cases of the BOD and I.I as being visible exceptions for traditional EENS.But the popes from Pius XII made this mistake.
The error can be corrected but CMTV, like the two popes and the liberals consider what is unethical and irrational as being magisterial.They are liberals and so over look this mistake in the apologists at Catholic Answers and EWTN.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/11/can-church-teach-heresy-analyzing.html
Bishop Michael Olsen, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Michael G.King and the faculty at the Fisher More College were interpreting Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise, when the Latin Mass was banned
Bishop Michael Olsen, the bishop of Fort Bend Wayne,Texas and Dr. Taylor Marshall the Chancellor of the Fisher More College, TX,were interpreting Vatican Council II with the Irrational and not Rational Premise, at the time the bishop banned the Latin Mass.Even the President Michael G. King and the faculty were interpreting the Council with the Irrational Premise. The faculty rejected Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise while the bishop and Taylor Marshall accepted the Council with the non-traditional conclusion.
None of them knew that they could interpret Vatican Council II rationally and there would be no rupture with Catholic Tradition.The students did not know this too. Since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and other dicasteries in the Vatican also interpret the Council unethically.
Today Taylor Marshall and Bishop Olsen, like the CDF and the present two popes, choose to interpret Vatican Council II falsely, to be politically correct with the Left.
The issue at Fisher More College was not really the Latin Mass. The Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass can be offered by a priest who will interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, the Creeds, Catechisms and the Baptism of Desire rationally.
The result is a return to the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal (1870).The priest in his homilies would have to be traditional and not liberal. Since liberalism has no support in a Vatican Council II which is in harmony with the Athanasius Creed and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.
Bishop Olsen today permits the Latin Mass ( not TLM) in his diocese but everyone has to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.This is not the Traditional Latin Mass. In other words there are physically visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance(LG16) etc.It is only in this way that there can be practical exceptions for EENS.So EENS with no known exceptions, according to the missionaries in the 16th century,is rejected.It was the missionaries in the Middle Ages who were really, offering the Traditional Latin or Greek Mass. Since there was no break with the past theology of an ecclesiocentric Church.
But the Latin Mass in the diocese of Bishop Olsen today is a break with the ecclesiology of the Patristic period. -Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 21, 2022
Young Germans must produce a video showing how Bishop George Batzing is dishonest
Young Germans must produce a video showing how Bishop George Batzing is dishonest. He is unethical when he chooses to use an Irrational Premise.With the Irrational Premise he confuses what it invisible as being visible. In this way he creates so-called practical exceptions.There are practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. He produces alleged objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no known exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors( with no known exceptions).So there is a break with Tradition.
How can Bishop Batzing continue to interpret Vatican Council II with an Irrational Premise to create a rupture with Catholic Tradition? This is unethical even by secular standards. How can he be trusted on other issues, finances etc.?-Lionel Andrades
Young Germans must produce a video showing how Bishop George Batzing is dishonest. He is unethical when he chooses to use an Irrational Premise.With the Irrational Premise he confuses what it invisible as being visible. In this way he creates so-called practical exceptions.There are practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. He produces alleged objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no known exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors( with no known exceptions).So there is a break with Tradition.
How can Bishop Batzing continue to interpret Vatican Council II with an Irrational Premise to create a rupture with Catholic Tradition? This is unethical even by secular standards. How can he be trusted on other issues, finances etc.?-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 21, 2022
How can Bishop Georg Batzing continue to interpret Vatican Council II with an Irrational Premise to create a break with Catholic Tradition. This is unethical even by secular standards. How can he be trusted on other issues, finances etc.
MAY 31, 2022
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall contradict Pope Francis, the cardinals and the Left on doctrine.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall contradict Pope Francis, the cardinals and the Left on doctrine. The former say that there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire. They indicate that the baptism of desire(BOD), being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) etc, are not objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed. But for the present two popes BOD and I.I refer to visible people saved outside the Catholic Church. They are projected as objective examples of salvation outside the Church. So the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church is made obsolete. The dogma EENS was put aside by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
So now we have Bishop Athanasius Schneider when interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall saying that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. While for the popes from Paul VI to Francis, BOD and I.I are exceptions for EENS, in other words they are visible cases, for them to be practical exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology.
The problem was there even at the time of Pope Pius XII. He over looked the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). The LOHO projected unknown cases of BOD and I.I as being known and objective exceptions for 16th century EENS. Pope Pius XII did not in public support Fr. Leonard Feeney who was being maligned by the Leftist media in Boston.
This was about the time, after the creation of the state of Israel in 1947.
So now it is known that in Vatican Council II, invisible and hypothetical cases (LG 8, LGF 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc) are not practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. There is nothing in the Council-text to contradict the traditional strict interpretation of EENS. While Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So Vatican Council II interpreted rationally (invisible cases are invisible) supports traditional ecclesiocentrism for Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall. With Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally (invisible cases are visible), then LG 8 etc are practical exceptions for EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational.
But with the False Premise there will also be two interpretations of the Nicene, Athanasius and Apostle’s Creed. There are two interpretation of Vatican Council so there has to be two interpretations of the Syllabus of Errors.
It means that Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall have unity with the past Magisterium and the present popes are in division with the pre-1940 popes. Their liberalism comes with the False Premise and produces division, with conservative and orthodox Catholics. -Lionel Andrades
mAY 27, 2022
Germany can interpret Vatican Council II like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall and throw away the books of Pope Benedict 
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall contradict Pope Francis, the cardinals and the Left on doctrine. The former say that there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire. They indicate that the baptism of desire(BOD), being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) etc, are not objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed. But for the present two popes BOD and I.I refer to visible people saved outside the Catholic Church. They are projected as objective examples of salvation outside the Church. So the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church is made obsolete. The dogma EENS was put aside by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
So now we have Bishop Athanasius Schneider when interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall saying that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. While for the popes from Paul VI to Francis, BOD and I.I are exceptions for EENS, in other words they are visible cases, for them to be practical exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology.
The problem was there even at the time of Pope Pius XII. He over looked the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). The LOHO projected unknown cases of BOD and I.I as being known and objective exceptions for 16th century EENS. Pope Pius XII did not in public support Fr. Leonard Feeney who was being maligned by the Leftist media in Boston.
This was about the time, after the creation of the state of Israel in 1947.
So now it is known that in Vatican Council II, invisible and hypothetical cases (LG 8, LGF 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc) are not practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. There is nothing in the Council-text to contradict the traditional strict interpretation of EENS. While Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So Vatican Council II interpreted rationally (invisible cases are invisible) supports traditional ecclesiocentrism for Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall. With Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally (invisible cases are visible), then LG 8 etc are practical exceptions for EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational.
But with the False Premise there will also be two interpretations of the Nicene, Athanasius and Apostle’s Creed. There are two interpretation of Vatican Council so there has to be two interpretations of the Syllabus of Errors.
It means that Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall have unity with the past Magisterium and the present popes are in division with the pre-1940 popes. Their liberalism comes with the False Premise and produces division, with conservative and orthodox Catholics. -Lionel Andrades
mAY 27, 2022
Germany can interpret Vatican Council II like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall and throw away the books of Pope Benedict
-Lionel Andrades
__________________________________
MAY 12, 2022If 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. https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/05/if-pope-francis-announces-that-lg-8.html __________________________
Posts
