VATICAN COUNCIL II CAN ONLY BE INTERPRETED RATIONALLY
How can Archbishop Vincent Manuel Fernandez approve homosexual unions since there is no such precedent in the Church, it is not part of Tradition? How can he do it in the name of Vatican Council II? The Council can only be interpreted rationally. The Council is only traditional. Tradition says homosexual acts are a grave sin. The Bible says that they who perform these acts or live in this way cannot go to Heaven. So can the teaching of the Church on this issue be changed since there is no precedent in the Church and Vatican Council II supports the past ecclesiology?
VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT SUPPORT LIBERALISM ANY MORE
Pope Francis and Archbishop Vincent
Manuel Fernandez can no more cite Vatican Council II to support their
liberalism.
We have an obligation to only interpret
the Council rationally. Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II
irrationally?
Archbishop Fernandez must announce that
LG 8, LG 14, LG16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to only hypothetical cases in
1965-2023.
For him, LG 8, 14 and 16 etc cannot be
practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the
Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
Presently he does not qualify to be the
Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith. He interprets Vatican Council II
irrationally and dishonestly.
So how can he approve homosexual unions
in the name of Vatican Council II?
How can the Synods use Vatican Council
II to support their liberalism?
THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS THE ROMAN MISSAL AND THE OLD LEX ORANDI
The Council supports the past
exclusivist ecclesiology and the old Roman Missal and lex orandi.
Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican, would not only interpret Vatican Council II irrationally but was using the false interpretation of the Council to support liberalism in principle.Pope John Paul II did not correct him.Neither did the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) correct Pope Benedict during the Doctrinal Talks.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was also interpreting
invisible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG16 as being visible exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism.
So how can Archbishop Fernandez and Pope Francis confuse invisible cases of LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II etc as being visible exceptions for the past exclusive salvation in the Church which was part of the lex orandi for centuries in the Catholic Church?
Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation). LG 14 is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church there is no salvation (CCC 845,846).While CCC 847and 848 on invincible ignorance etc do not contradict Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14 and neither CCC 845,846.
NO EXCEPTIONS IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR FEENEYITE EENS
So there are no exceptions mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are always hypothetical and speculative cases.They refer to physically invisible people in 1965-2023.
Yet children in secular schools interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology and traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
SECULAR SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES TEACH ERROR
Why must students in the universities interpret Vatican Council II, by confusing invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16 etc as being visible exceptions for the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence on EENS? It is only when they choose this deception are they allowed to get a Masters or Doctorate Degree.
This is the official condition at the Urbaniana Pontifical University in Rome.They only give you academic degrees if you interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.This is the official requirement which is political.
Sandra Mussolini has a doctrate in dogmatic theology and is the Dean of the Missiology Department of the Urbaniana University. She only approves the thesis of students who confuse invisible cases of LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Patristic period, is contradicted in this way by Vatican Council II.This is a political and deceptive interpretation of the Patristic period and Vatican Council II which she promotes.
It is obligatory for all students at the Urbaniana, to reject the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on EENS by interpreting Vatican Council II with the fake premise ( invisible people are visible, LG 8,14 and 16 refer to visible non Catholics saved outside the Church) and fake inference ( So Vatican Council II has made the dogma EENS obsolete, with practical exceptions) and fake conclusion ( Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism and is a new ecclesiology.It is a revolution in the Church. So there can be innovation in mission, ecclesiology, faith and morals.There is a new magisterium. It has made the old moral theology obsolete and 'immoral').
This was the irrationality Archbishop Victor Fernandez was teaching as rector of the seminary in Argentina.
GOVERNMENTS MUST CLARIFY THEIR POSITION ON VATICAN COUNCIL II
The secular ministries of justice, the departments of education in diferent countries must be asked to clarify that LG 8,14, 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer to only theoretical and speculative cases in 1965-2023. They are not known people. if someone was saved as such it would only be known to God.There are no such cases in our human reality.Lay groups could start with Germany.
The ministry has only to confirm the obvious which is that LG 8,14,16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 in Vatican Council II do not refer to practically known people in 2023 saved outside the Church.
START WITH GERMANY
This would mean of course, that in Germany when Pope Benedict and German theologians projected LG 8,14,16 etc as being exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology, they were referring to 'visibile cases'. Invisible people cannot be exceptions.Cardinal Marx and Bishop Batzing are deceptive on Vatican Council II. They have to correct themselves.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.urbaniana.press/autore/mazzolini-sandra/79
_____________________________________________
JULY 7, 2023
Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez has been made the Prefect of the Dicastery for Doctrine and Faith (DDF) and no one is pointing out that he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This is a public and official error of the DDF.If he did not interpret Vatican Council II irrationally he would be a Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez has been made the Prefect of the Dicastery for Doctrine and Faith (DDF) and no one is pointing out that he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This is a public and official error of the DDF.If he did not interpret Vatican Council II irrationally he would be a Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Council interpreted rationally supports the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X.
The references to the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are to hypothetical cases. They are speculative and theoretical and so not practical exceptions for traditional mission and evangelization, based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the same mistake as the Prefect of the DDF. He interpreted BOD, BOB and I.I irrationally. Then he went ahead and interpreted LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II also irrationally.
Now the traditionalists and sedevacantists interpret the Council irrationally and not rationally,.
So Fr. Claude Barthe, President of Coetus International, the organizers of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage and the Superiors of the Ecclesia Dei communities are keeping silent and going along with the mistake.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate will not be given canonical recognition by Fernandez, since they correctly do not accept, Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, NH, USA will also not be granted canonical recognition since they interpret all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils etc) rationally, in harmony with Feeneyite EENS; or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).It did not mention any exceptions.
By 2025, the Jubilee Year, the traditionalists could be told that they are ‘religious fanatics’ since they do not (correctly) accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. So they could be outside the Church officially according to the leftist secular administration in Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities at the Vatican.Presently some traditionalists say they accept Vatican Council II and others say they do not but neither of them state if they refer to Vatican Council II, rational or irrational.
The old moral theology would be considered ‘immoral’ by Fernan dez since it is contradicted by Vatican Council II ( irrational) and the Lefebvrists do not want to talk about Vatican Council II ( rational) since they do not want to be labeled ‘Feeneyite’ and so Anti Semitic.
The rectors of six universities in Rome, including La Sapienza, are working together on a leftist project, to implement the Synod teachings. There are big posters placed in the churches in Rome. The focus is on woman ( Donna nella Chiesa) in the Church.
There are courses on ecclesiology with its foundation on Vatican Council II (irrational). This is public and no one objects. -Lionel Andrades
During his pontificate he made numerous apostolic journeys. The first of these was in Lampedusa where he highlighted the theme of welcoming migrants, which he too spoke about on his trip to America, first to Cuba and then to the United States of America. During this visit he gave speeches to the UN and to the Congress (the first Pontiff to speak in this institutional place) where he spoke about the environmental theme, so dear to him, and the fight against religious fanaticism of any origin, human rights and individual and civil liberties.
https://www.giubileo-2025.it/en/pope-francis
_______________________________________________________
JULY 6, 2023
Archbishop Victor Fernandez
does not qualify to be the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith ( Dicastery for Doctrine and Faith-DDF).
Archbishop Victor Fernandez does not qualify to be the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( Dicastery for Doctrine and Faith-DDF), since his Profession of Faith and Oath as A Bishop is invalid, when he changes the interpretation of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed by interpreting Vatican Council II ( LG 8,14, 16 etc), irrationally and not rationally. He chooses the false premise (invisible people are visible, LG 16 refers to a physically visible case in 1965-2023).This produces a nontraditional conclusion. It says Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q) etc. According to Canon Law he has to be a Catholic. He has to affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church. Otherwise he cannot hold the office of Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), formerly called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).Neither can be made a bishop or cardinal until this scandal is removed. Fernandez presently does not qualify.
1. He must interpret Vatican Council II (LG 8, 14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) rationally. He has to say that LG 8 etc are physically invisible in 2023 for us human beings.
2. In the same way he must affirm the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I). He has to accept them as being only hypothetical cases. They are physically invisible for us. If anyone is saved as such it could only be known to God. He has an obligation morally to project them honestly i.e. as invisible cases only.
3.So he cannot project invisible cases of LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). They do not contradict the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) on EENS.
So the BOD, BOB and I.I are not practical exceptions for the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) made an objective mistake when it projected invisible cases of the BOD and I.I as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS i.e. the strict interpretation of EENS according to the Church Councils (1215,1442), which did not mention any exceptions.
I instead affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church unlike the Argentine Archbishop.
1. I accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. They refer to invisible people in our human reality.
2. Also I accept BOD, BOB and I.I. They are always speculative, theoretical and are not visible in our human reality. They are known only to God. So BOD, BOB and I.I, like Vatican Council II (LG 8 etc), does not contradict the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence, for me.
3. I reject the second part of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (Referred to here as LOHO).Since it contradicts the first part of LOHO which supports traditional EENS. It uses a false premise to reject the centuries old strict interpretation of EENS of the Church Councils and the past Magisterium.
So I can affirm Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, Catechisms, and EENS etc) which I interpret rationally. The new DDF Prefect cannot say the same.
I am a Feeneyite and he is a Cushingite.For Feeneyites, invisible people are invisible, Lumen Gentium 16, refers to an invisible case in 1965-2023.So I interpret LG 8 etc with Feeneyism. He chooses irrational Cushingism (invisible people are physically visible in 1965-2023, LG 16 refers to a visible case, an example of salvation outside the Church).
Cushingism is heretical, schismatic, nontraditional and unethical. It is a dishonest way to reject Tradition.
I interpret Vatican Council II with the Two Columns, choosing the rational option. He chooses the nontraditional, irrational and dishonest option.
These are major philosophical and theological errors of Fernandez who is to be the President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/we-have-new-discovery-which-is-unknown.html
He is non apostolic and non magisterial since for the Apostles, the Church Fathers and popes and saints in the Middle Ages, the red was not an exception for the blue. They interpreted the Creeds, Catechisms etc rationally. Fernandes is not proclaiming the Gospel and rejects traditional mission and evangelization based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church (Fourth Lateran Council etc). He is in schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Congar, Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung, Murray, Lefebvre, Pope Paul VI and the cardinals and bishops in 1965 were interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally. Now Fernandez and Pope Francis 1 make the same mistake. I avoid their error. Fernandez, the 60 years old archbishop of the diocese of La Plata since 2018, will not only expect all cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns to interpret Magisterial Documents ( Creed, Councils and Catechisms etc) irrationally like him but will also expect the same from the Society of St. Pius X( SSPX) and the sedevacantists ( CMRI,MHT,MHFM etc).
He is not a Catholic. He does not affirm Magisterial Documents rationally like me.
He will not grant canonical recognition to the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA. They interpret all Magisterial Documents rationally like me.
He will not grant canonical recognition to the Franciscans of the Immaculate of Fr. Stefano Mannelli ffi. They reject the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
When I interpret the BOD and I.I rationally, and also the Magisterial Documents in which they are referred to, I am supported by Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, former Nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein. I am supported by Fr. Stefano Visintin OSB, former Benedictine Rector and Dean of Theology, University of St.Anselm Rome. I am supported by John Martignoni apologist who has had a program on apologetics on EWTN.
Fernandez, is a consultant to various Vatican Congregations, including those overseeing the Bishops Conference in Italy (CEI). The CEI has appointed a Commission to investigate the seer Gisella Cardia in Trevignon, Italy. Fernandez expects the CEI and Cardia to interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally, to be in good standing with the Church.
Archbishop Fernandez ompleted a doctorate in theology at the Faculty of Theology in Buenos Aires, where, if he interpreted Magisterial Documents rationally, he could be accused of being 'a Feeneyite' like Brother Andre Marie mica, the Superior of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Center(SBC) in NH. So he interprets all Church Documents irrationally and deceptively.
The Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, issued a Decree of Prohibitions against the SBC. Brother Andre Marie micm and his religious community in NH accept all Magisterial Documents which they interpret rationally. They also accept BOD and I.I and interpret them rationally and so affirm Feeneyite EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council etc. Fernandez cannot say the same. He avoids being a Feeneyite on EENS and having a Decree of Prohibition issued against him. He escapes, by interpreting BOD, BOB and I.I and Vatican Council II, dishonestly.
Conclusion: Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez does not qualify to be the Prefect of the DDF. He violates canon and secular law with his public dishonesty. He is in manifest public heresy and schism.
For political reasons he will not deny it. He will not want to be considered ' a Feeneyite' like the Church Fathers and Apostles and the saints and popes of the Middle Ages. They were all Feeneyite.
He is a political-Left appointee and does not represent the Catholic Church, its body of knowledge, its deposit of faith.
The deposit of faith is the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed, Feeneyite i.e. invisible people are invisible, LG 8,14 and 16 refer to invisible cases in 2023.These Creeds are not Cushingite i.e. invisible people are visible, LG 8,14,16 etc refer to visible people saved outside the Church in 2023.
The deposit of faith are the Church Councils , Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
The deposit of faith are all the Catechisms, Feeneyite - and not Cushingite.
The deposit of faith is Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
This Catholic faith is Feeneyite like it was over the centuries. It does not change with time.
The lex orandi was always Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
Since Fernandez interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, like Pope Francis, he produces a break with Tradition and so they think they can change the Church's teachings on the Eucharist at Mass, its reception and importance, contradicting the Bible and Ecclesia de Eucharistia of Pope John Paul II.
Since Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition, for Fernandez, when it is interpreted irrationally, he uses this error, to approve the liberalism of the Synods on faith and morals e.g LGBT-sex, polygamy etc.They are supported by the new moral theology of Vatican Council II, irrational.
Since the lex orandi for him is Cushingite and not Feeneyite the members of the Coetus International, Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage and Ecclesia Dei communities are outside the Church.This is 'the new magisterium' of Cardinal Arthur Roche which has its foundation in Vatican Council II , Cushingite and not Feeneyite, the Council interpreted irrationally and not rationally.
This is not Catholic teaching. Since with Vatican Council II, rational, there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church, before and after the Council. There is no development of doctrine. The Council is traditional. It supports evangelization and mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Church. There is no proclamation of Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation. So there can only be an ecumenism of return. There is no other rational theological choice.
Now with the irrational interpretation of Magisterial Documents, they can choose a Hindu or Buddhist to be the Prefect of the DDF. A non Christian can be chosen to be a pope, cardinal or bishop whose Profession of Faith and Oath would be modernist and based upon a dishonest interpretation of Magisterial teachings, like that of Archbishop Fernandez. -Lionel Andrades
1
JUNE 22, 2023
We now have new information. It is a breakthrough.It is the popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who will now be on the defensive, on Vatican Council II.
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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment