eucharistandmission: 08/01/2023

Thursday, August 31, 2023

SR. BRIEGE MCKENNA: MIRACLES DO HAPPEN

Now for Pope Francis, Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism. So he implies that LG 8 etc refer to visible cases. These visible cases are exceptions for the dogma EENS.

When LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only, then Vatican Council II has no exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Athanasius Creed.

Now for Pope Francis, Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism. So he implies that LG 8 etc refer to visible cases. These visible cases are exceptions for the dogma EENS.

For me, LG 8 etc refer to invisible people in 2023. So invisible people cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church in 2023.If the person does not exist in our reality then that person cannot be an objective exception for the dogma EENS.Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions for EENS and the rest of Tradition.

Now we all agree that we cannot physically see anyone saved with the baptism of desire. We cannot see someone saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance.They do not exist in our reality. We cannot see or meet someone saved as such. If someone was saved in invincible ignorance etc, outside the Church it could only be known to God.

Pope Francis does not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS. He needs the exceptions. He needs the irrational exceptions. He must state that there are known exceptions even though he cannot know of any such case. Since if there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II for EENS , then he would have to be a Feeneyite on EENS.

For him the baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) refer to ‘explicit cases’. It is the same with LG 8, LG 14, and LG 16 etc. Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition for him, but not for me.

For me the Council has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. - Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades

former Staff Reporter, daily Morning News, Karachi, Pakistan.

Recipient of the All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) Best Reporter of the Year Award, presented by the Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto.

Recipient of the Pakistan Government's Award for Literature ( Childrens stories).

Teacher of English and Church History at the Catholic Minor Seminary, Rawalpindi

Sent to Rome for Ministerial Priesthood by Bishop Anthony Lobo, bishop of Rawalpindi-Islamabad, Pakistan.

Discriminated against by the pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome.He interprets Vatican Council II rationally and not irrationally. So there is a continuity with Tradition. He is not allowed to study at pontifical universities in Rome, where it is obligatory to interpret Magisterial Documents, irrationally and unethically.Catholic students and seminarians are discriminated against. This is public and official.

However we have a new discovery in the Catholic Church. There are 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, when it is interpreted rationally i.e LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases. So they are not objective examples of salvation. They are not objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.

It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.The Creeds must not be changed.

Why should Catholics choose an irrational version of the Creeds, Catechisms and Councils, which is heretical, non-traditional 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 and call it Catholic.

Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Balthazar, Kung, Lefebvre and Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally. We can today choose to interpret the Council rationally and in harmony with Tradition.

Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/

Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA

Sr. Briege McKenna – Healing Service

Our Lady's Message to Medjugorje Visionary Marija for August 25, 2023

https://marytv.tv/marytv-latest-videos/

Our Lady's Message to Medjugorje Visionary Marija for August 25, 2023

Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops must announce that Vatican Council II should only be interpreted rationally and not irrationally.

Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops must announce that Vatican Council II should only be interpreted rationally and not irrationally.The present irrational interpretation is unethical.LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II must refer to only hypothetical cases, always.

CONCORDAT

The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs must clarify that the Concordat is based only on Vatican Council II interpreted rationally i.e. LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc refer to hypothetical, speculative and theoretical cases only in 2023.The Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Education, Italy must also clarify that LG 8,14,15,16 etc refer to only hypothetical cases, for them.They are not physically visible people on earth. If any one is saved as such it can only be known to God. So the Italian Government must choose Feeneyism and not Cushingism.

CUSHINGISM AND FEENEYISM

Cushingism needs the false premise.It confuses invisible cases (LG 16 etc) as being physically visible in the present times.It produces liberalism It is dishonest.

Pius XII and Pope John XIII were Cushingites. They accepted the irrational reasoning of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO).Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have also been Cushingite.They accepted the LOHO.

I am a Feeneyite. For me invisible cases are just invisible i.e. LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical, speculative and theoretical cases in 2023.So LG 16 etc are not objective exceptions for the dogma EENS, for me.

So even though Rahner, Balthazar, Congar and Lefebvre were Cushingites we can still interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism. We can put away the Ratzinger, Muller and Fernandez theology, since it is irrational and unethical.The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is still Cushingite. Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were written with Cushingism.Today Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura and the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent are still being interpreted with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism, i.e LG 8,14,16 etc are seen as being objective and not hypothetical cases.

HEART OF THE MATTER

1.If Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS then it means that LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So they are exceptions for EENS etc.

2. If Vatican Council II is not a break with the dogma EENS then it means that LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc refer to invisible cases. They are not visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023. Invisible cases cannot be practical exceptions for me.So there is nothing in the text of Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.

A. Similarly if the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance refer to physically visible cases, of salvation outside the Church in 1949-2023, then this is Cushingism. It is irrational. There is a break with the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return.The Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q-outside the Church there is no salvation), has exceptions. There is a break with Tradition.

B. But if BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible cases, then they do not contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the ecumenism of return and the Catechism of Pope Pius X(24Q,27Q).There is no rupture with Tradition.

When what is invisible is considered invisible, I call it Feeneyism.
When what is invisible is considered visible, I call it a Cushingism.

We can interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

We can interpret BOD, BOB and I.I with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

So we can interpret the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed with Feeneyism or Cushingism. When these Creeds refer to BOD, BOB and I.I they can be Feeneyite or Cushingite. For example, (Nicene Creed-I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin ( and not three known baptisms).

The Apostles Creed (the Holy Spirit guides the Holy Catholic Church to say outside the Church there is no salvation and not outside the Church there is known salvation.

All need Catholic faith for salvation (Athanasius Creed).This is Feeneyism. But if it is said all need Catholic faith for salvation with some known exceptions then this is Cushingism.

The only holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Four Marks, Nicene Creed) in the past taught that outside the Church there is no salvation. What it teaches today depends upon you -if you are a Feeneyite or Cushingite.

In the same way there can two interpretations of Vatican Council II (LG 8,14,15,16 etc). It depends upon how you interpret LG 8 etc, with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

-Lionel Andrades