Friday, March 31, 2023
These 10 points indicate that a future pope will be a conservative or and not liberal.
These 10
points indicate that a future pope will be a conservative and not a liberal. The Catholic Church will return to the past. Rome comes back to the
Faith. There will be a coherence in theology and doctrine.
1.
The pope will have to accept the Fourth Lateran
Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442), on extra ecclesiam nulla
salus, since Vatican Council II
interpreted rationally does not contradict them. The two Councils say outside
the Church there is no salvation and do not mention any exceptions. So a pope
can only interpret Vatican Council II rationally. This is ethical. He has to
affirm EENS like the popes over the centuries.In Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14) the Church
is saying, all Protestants and non Christians are oriented to Hell, without
faith and the baptism of water.
2.
The pope has to
interpret Vatican Council II with the red passages which mention the baptism of
desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, not being exceptions for
the blue passages which support the past ecclesiocentrism. The red is not an exception for the blue. In this way there is a
continuity with the past exclusivist ecclesiology. When the red is a rupture with the blue, there is a break with
Tradition.So the pope will have to read the passages in the Council
differently.
3.
The pope will
have to realize that the Boston Heresy Case refers to the heresy of Pope Pius
XII, the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, the Rector of Boston
College and the American Jesuits. It does not refer to
Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of that time, as the media
portrays it.
4. There will be no other
choice. The pope will have to re-read LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc
in Vatican Council II as not being exceptions for Feeneyite extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The 1949 Letter of the Holy
Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney made
an objective mistake in the second part of the document. It
contradicts the first part, which affirms traditional EENS. The
second part does this with a false premise and inference.
5. Non Catholics are oriented
to Hell according to Vatican Council II (rational), interpreted with the
rational premise and inference. They are oriented to Hell because of original
sin and mortal sins committed in this state, with no access to the Sacraments,
especially that of Confession to a Catholic priest. They need to convert into
the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water ( AG 7, LG 14, CCC
845,846 etc).The Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 (invincible ignorance)
does not contradict CCC 845-846.This is a new way for a pope to read the
Council. It is a break with the popes from Paul VI;
6. The Catechism of the
Catholic Church (CCC 847-848- invincible ignorance) does not contradict CCC
845-846. It also does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and the Athanasius Creed.So this is a different way of reading
all the Catechisms and Vatican Council II.This is not the political way the Bishops Conferences today interpret Vatican
Council II. In the future the Bishops Conferences will have to interpret
Vatican Council II rationally and so also the cardinals. The pope will have to
do the same.
7.Vatican Council II (
rational) has a hermeneutic of continuity with the Council of Florence 1442 and
Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of his time. It does not have
this continuity with Pope Pius XII, the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to
the Archbishop, to Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston College.
Neither has it a continuity today, with Cardinal Sean O'Malley and his
Curia. So the popes can no more interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly. They
can no more cite the 1949 LOHO.The books on Vatican Council II based upon the
reasoning of the LOHO are now obsolete.People know they have a rational choice.
8. Fr. Leonard Feeney was
teaching orthodoxy ( Council of Florence 1442 etc) and Pope Pius XII
un-orthodoxy ( visible cases of BOD and I.I) which contradict the Council of
Florence etc.
The Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), was teaching un-orthodoxy (1949 LOHO) and the St.
Benedict Center,in 1949 orthodoxy. Today the CDF teaches the same un-orthodoxy
and the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, orthodoxy ( Vatican
Council II and EENS are accepted and interpreted rationally). When the CDF
chooses to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so affirm orthodoxy, the
pope will have to do the same. The pope can no more support political
liberalism in the name of Vatican Council II.
9.The popes have been
interpreting Vatican Council II and EENS according to the Jewish Left (ADL
etc). The St. Benedict Center, NH interprets Vatican Council II and EENS
according to the principles of the Magisterium over the centuries i.e BOD and
I.I are always hypothetical only. The norm for salvation is faith and the
baptism of water. Exceptions are known only to God.Exceptions do not make the
rule etc.The cardinals will have to choose to interpret Vatican Council II and
EENS like Brother Andre Marie micm, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center, NH.
There will not be any other rational and honest choice.
10. For Pope Benedict, Vatican Council II had a
hermeneutic of continuity with Pope Pius XII and the 1949 LOHO. For the St.
Benedict Center, New Hampshire and me, Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of
continuity with Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and
the Council of Florence (1442) and the rest of Tradition.The liberal theology
of Pope Benedict is now obsolete. Catholics know they have a choice.They will
check a pope or cardinal who interprets Vatican Council II dishonestly. -Lionel
Andrades
Dr. Jules Gomes, Church Miliant correspondent in Rome, cannot tell Cardinal Filipe Neri Ferrão, the Archbishop of Goa, India, that he must affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence(1442) since Vatican Council II interpreted rationally does not contradict them.
We can tell a tree by its fruits. The fruits are bad when Dr. Jules
Gomes, Church Miliant correspondent in Rome, cannot tell Cardinal Filipe
Neri Ferrão, the Archbishop of Goa, India, that he must affirm the Fourth
Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence(1442), since Vatican Council
II interpreted rationally does not contradict them. The two Councils say outside the Church
there is no salvation and do not mention any exceptions.
Ex- Anglicans Jules Gomes and Gavin Ashden are not even telling the
Catholic Anglican Ordinariate, that in Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14) the
Church is saying, all Protestants and non Christians are oriented to Hell,
without faith and the baptism of water.
They both are interpreting Vatican Council II like the Archbishop of
Goa, where Catholics now worship Hindu deities.
2. They need to interpret Vatican Council II with the red passages which
mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, not
being exceptions for the blue passages which support the past ecclesiocentrism. The red is not an exception for the blue. In this way there is a continuity with the past exclusivist ecclesiology. When the red is a rupture with the blue, there is a break with Tradition.
3.They both must realize that the Boston Heresy Case refers to the heresy of
Pope Pius XII, the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, the Rector
of Boston College and the American Jesuits. It does not refer to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the
St. Benedict Center of that time, as the media portrays it.
4.So Gomes and Ashden have to re-read LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in
Vatican Council II as not being exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla
salus (EENS). The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston
relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney made an objective mistake in the second part of
the document. It contradicts the first part, which affirms traditional EENS. The second part does this with a false premise and inference.
5. Non Catholics in India and Boston are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II (rational), interpreted with the rational premise and inference. They are oriented to Hell because of original sin and mortal sins committed in this state, with no access to the Sacraments, especially that of Confession to a Catholic priest. They need to convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water ( AG 7, LG 14, CCC 845,846 etc).The Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 (invincible ignorance) does not contradict CCC 845-846.
6. Dr.Jules Gomes and Gavin Ashden must realise that CCC 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict CCC 845-846. It also does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.So this is a different way of reading all the Catechisms and Vatican Council II.This is not the poliical way the Catholic Bishops Conference in Britain interpret Vatican Council II.
7.Vatican Council II ( rational) has a hermeneutic of continuity with the Council of Florence 1442 and Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of his time.It does not have this continuity with Pope Pius XII, the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston College. Neither has it a continuity today, with Cardinal Sean O'Malley and his Curia.
8.The Archbishop of Detroit and his Curia, and the faculty of the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, are heretical and schismatic according to Vatican Council II ( AG 7/ LG 14 interpreted rationally) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845, 846-interpreted rationally).Like them, Ashden and Jules reject Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted irrationally. It is the same with Fr. Michael Nazir Ali. They all accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism as a break with the Council of Florence, the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of Trent and Pius X and the rest of Tradition.They reject de fide teachings of the Catholic Church.This is political and not Catholic.
9. The interpretation of Vatican Council II by the popes from Paul VI to Francis is heretical and schismatic.The interpretation of the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office by Pope Pius XII to Francis is also heretical and schismatic.It is irrational and non traditional.It is unethical when Pope Francis and the cardinals continue with their interpretation. It is dishonest and not Catholic.
10. Fr. Leonard Feeney was teaching orthodoxy ( Council of Florence 1442 etc) and Pope Pius XII un-orthodoxy ( visible cases of BOD and I.I) which contradict the Council of Florence etc.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), was teaching un-orthodoxy (1949 LOHO) and the St. Benedict Center,in 1949 orthodoxy. Today the CDF teaches the same un-orthodoxy and the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, orthodoxy ( Vatican Council II and EENS are accepted and interpreted rationally).
11.The popes interpret Vatican Council II and EENS according to the Jewish Left (ADL etc). The St. Benedict Center, NH interprets Vatican Council II and EENS according to the principles of the Magisterium over the centuries i.e BOD and I.I are always hypothetical only. The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water. Exceptions are known only to God.Exceptions do not make the rule etc.
12.For Pope Benedict, Vatican Council II had a hermeneutic of continuity with Pope Pius XII and the 1949 LOHO. For the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire and me, Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) and the rest of Trdaition. -Lionel Andrades
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catholics-adore-hindu-goddess
Fuori della Chiesa Cattolica non c'e salvezza ( Updated)
FUORI DELLA CHIESA CATTOLICA
NON C’E SALVEZZA
(OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS
NO SALVATION)
GIOV.3:5, MC.16:16
(JOHN 3:5, MARK 16:16)
CONCILIO VATICANO II (AG7/LG14)
(VATICAN COUNCIL II (Ad Gentes
7/ Lumen Gentes 14)
CATECHISMO DELLA CHIESA CATTOLICA (846)
(CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 846)
CATECHISMO DEL TRENTO, CATECHISMO DEL PAPA PIO X,
(CATECHISM OF TRENT, CATECHISM
OF POPE PIUS X)
CONCILIO LATERANO (1215), CONCILIO DI FIRENZE (1442)
(FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL
(1215), COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1442))
Name: Lionel Andrades https://twitter.com/AndradesLionel
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Blog: eucharistandmission ( Lionel’s blog).
IL BATTESIMO DI DESIDERIO (BOD), IL BATTESIMO DI
SANGUE (BOB) E L'ESSERE SALVATI NELL'INVINCIBILE IGNORANZA (I.I) SONO SEMPRE
CASI IPOTETICI E FISICAMENTE INVISIBILI. QUINDI NON CONTRADIDONO IL DOGMA EXTRA
ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (EENS).IL BOD, BOB E I.I NON SONO PERSONE CONOSCIUTE NEI
CASI PERSONALI. NON CI SONO CASI FISICAMENTE VISIBILI DI ESSERE SALVATI
NELL'INVINCIBILE IGNORANZA. QUINDI NON SONO ECCEZIONI OGGETTIVE PER IL DOGMA
EENS NEL 1965-2023.AD GENTES 7 E LUMEN GENTIUM 14 SOSTENGONO IL DOGMA EENS .LG
8,14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 ETC NON SONO ECCEZIONI PRATICHE PER AG 7/ LG 14 E
IL DOGMA EENS. IL CONCILIO HA L'ERMENEUTICA DELLA CONTINUITÀ CON IL PROGRAMMA
DEGLI ERRORI, IL CREDO DI ATANASIO E IL CATECHISMO DI PAPA PIO X (24Q,27Q).
Thursday, March 30, 2023
The Vortex — Faith with Fangs
Church Militant TV needs to update and correct their page on the Society
of St. Pius X(SSPX). I go for Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome and I interpret
Vatican Council II rationally ( LG 16 are hypothetical only. So
invincible ignorance does not contradict the dogma EENS or the orthodox
passages in CCC 846).
I reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally by CMTV and Pope
Francis (For them LG 16, invincible ignorance, are physically visible cases in 1965-2023
and so contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support 12th
to 16th century EENS).
 |
I interpret Vatican Council II with a rational premise and inference and so my conclusion is traditional and non heretical. They interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference and so their conclusion is heretical and schismatic. The false premise creates a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So this is my doctrinal position.
I affirm the old theology of the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1442. Christine Niles rejected Cantate Domino, 1442 when she projected hypothetical cases of being saved invincible ignorance as being non hypothetical and objective. She cited the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office in a M’cd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So she cited Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, in that program and a) did not clarify that the 1949 LOHO, did not have any exceptions for Cantate Domino. b) Neither did she mention in that program that Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not contradict the Council of Florence on the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Instead Michael Voris has been interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally (in a program with Louie Verecchio etc) and projecting it as a break with Tradition.
I also affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed. But for CMTV and the Archbishop of Detroit this Creed and the Syllabus is contradicted by Vatican Council II, irrational. They are obsolete. Neither of them interpret the Council rationally and so in harmony with Tradition.
Since CMTV interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, LG 8, LG 14, LG
16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are explicit cases, examples of salvation outside
the Catholic Church. So the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q) has exceptions
for EENS according to CMTV.
This is irrational, heretical, schismatic and non traditional. It cannot
be the work of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be Magisterial even if this view is
supported by the popes after Vatican Council II.
Michael Voris and Michael Lofton need to clarify that they accept the
Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino
(1442) which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of
the Catholic Church.
In ‘Fr. Feeney’s Strange Doctrines ‘by Jim Russell (ChurchMilitant.com) April
23, 2019) posted on CMTV, Fr. Leonard Feeney
was maligned. He was not obliged to say invisible cases of the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance were physically visible for him.
Russell interpreted BOD and I.I in the same irrational way as Pope Pius XII and
the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. How can invisible people be visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949 and exceptions for Feeneyite EENS? This was also the irrational interpretation
of Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung, Murray and Congar in 1965.
So irrespective of CMTV’s views on Fr. Leonard Feeney the main issue now is Vatican Council II.
1) Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Council of
Florence etc when LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to only hypothetical and invisible cases.
2) The baptism of desire and being
saved in invincible ignorance are not objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS
as mentioned in the 1949 LOHO.
These points need to be clarified by
CMTV.
MARCH 28, 2023
It cannot be said, ‘to follow Pope Francis is to follow the Magisterium’ since Pope Francis rejects the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence, Cantata Domino (1442) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX when he accepts and interprets Vatican Council II irrationally.
MARCH 26, 2023
I accept Vatican Council II and I accept Tradition. Michael Voris and Michael Lofton do not accept Vatican Council II ( rational) and they reject Tradition ( Church Councils, Catechisms etc) which are contradicted by their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, which the SSPX and I reject.
MARCH 23, 2023
A pope cannot be Magisterial who supports the Boston Heresy. He must correct the error.There are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
MARCH 22, 2023
Michael Voris and Michael Lofton are not Magisterial when they do not affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as do the priests of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX). So why do they say the SSPX is not Magisterial?
MARCH 20, 2023
An Augustinian Recollect priest at the church Sant Ildefonso e Tomasso Villanova, via Sistina, Rome, yesterday agreed with me. He said Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past.
MARCH 19, 2023
This is interpreting Church Documents with the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII.
MARCH 19, 2023
Without the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits - the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) could interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
MARCH 16, 2023
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the Boston Heresy for canonical recognition
MARCH 16, 2023
The Boston Heresy refers to the public heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis. The heresy has infected the whole Church like the Arian heresy of the past. All the cardinals and bishops accept the Boston Heresy of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
MARCH 15, 2023
Wikipedia’s entries on Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla sales, Fr. Leonard Feeney, Feeneyism, etc reek with the Boston Heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis
MARCH 6, 2023
It is like watering the roots of a plant or tree. With one simple step, one action, the whole tree is nourished-branches, leaves, roots etc.In the same way by choosing the rational premise we return to the past in faith and morals, liturgy,. mission, ecclesiology etc
MARCH 6, 2023
Posts
