So were the Council
Fathers (1965) and Pope Paul VI, Magisterial?
The 1949
Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard
Feeney has an objective mistake. So it cannot be Magisterial. It has an error
which was not corrected by the popes since Pius XII.
The Council Fathers repeated this error in Lumen Gentium 14( baptism of desire), Lumen Gentium 16( being saved in invincible ignorance) etc, which were wrongly projected as exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. This was a mistake. It could not be Magisterial. This is really heresy.It is schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. In this sense Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the traditionalists were correct.They rejected a Vatican Council II, which interpreted LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc , irrationally. - Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Questions and Answers : So if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest f Tradition, as you say, then why did the Council Fathers (1965) mention them?
So if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest f Tradition, as you say, then why did the Council Fathers (1965) mention them?
Lionel: They made a mistake. They repeated the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It wrongly projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS, or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which did not mention any exceptions. - Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/so-if-lg-8-lg-14-lg-16-ur-3-na-2-gs-22.html
___________________________________________________________________________
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2021
Q & A : What is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. In brief can you tell us what is the difference between your interpretation of Vatican Council II and every one else ?
A. I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as always referring to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2021. So there are no objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed ( all need the Catholic faith for salvation).There are none mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.Neither are there any known, practical exceptions.
I accept the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as being hypothetical cases. I do not reject them.But I do not project them as being practical exceptions to EENS. It was the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which made an objective mistake.
So there are two interpretations of the Council today. One with the common False Premise and the other, mine, with the Ratioinal Premise. Their conclusion is non traditional, heretical, schismatic and divisive. Mine is in harmony with the past Magisterium.It has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. So Catholics today have an option.-Lionel Andrades
FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 2020
Questions and Answers
Yes. They did not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise and in harmony with the past ecclesiology..
We are back to outside the Church there is no salvation supported by Vatican Council II ( AG 7).
SATURDAY, JUNE 22, 2019
I affirm the public interpretation of the popes before Pius XII who did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were known people saved outside the Church. They did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to EENS. It is the SSPX which is at odds with the popes over the centuries
You are guilty of the error you accuse me of, an inability to admit, in this case, that the Church has declared an unbaptized catechumen in heaven, with St Emerentiana. Your only rebuttal is that the Church could not possibly know if St Emerentiana is in heaven without water baptism( and so we should not posit St.Emerentiana as an exception to EENS, secondly someone in the past is only a hypothetical case today.A possibility saved without the baptism of water in the past, known only to God, cannot be a practical and objective exception to the dogma EENS.Thirdly even if she was saved without the baptism of water as is speculated it does not mean that the possibility is an actual exception to the dogma EENS in the present times(1965-2019) (and thus we should view the object of the Church's public cult for this catechumen saint as merely hypothetical!!),( She is a saint and the cult can continue but please do not say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
You would not know and the Church has not said that any particular person would know and has the gift of seeing people in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water.) and thus your entire apologetic is flawed with the fallacy of petitio principii.
I have also proven to you that you personally do not know of any LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 case in the present times ( 1965-2019) saved outside or within the Church.You have agreed with me. I have also proven to you that you are afraid to admit this common place and obvious conclusion in public , since it will....and for whatever other reason.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019
A closet Feeneyite
-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment