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.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/06/a-new-discovery-pope-francis-cdf-etc.html
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.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/06/repost-those-who-affirm-vatican-council.html
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.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-red-is-not-exception-for-blue-but.html
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).
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/06/i-am-affirming-vatican-council-ii-like.html
Cushingism is heretical, schismatic, nontraditional and unethical. It is a dishonest way to reject Tradition.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/06/so-when-cardinals-hollerich-and-grech.html
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-revolution-in-interpretation-of.html
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.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/06/we-now-have-new-information-it-is.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/06/pope-francis-is-not-magisterial-on.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-basic-issue-which-i-keep-writing.html
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
Bradley Eli on CMTV tells Jules Gomes that Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez will have to answer to God on the Day of Judgment for his liberalism. But Fernandez does not think he is doing anything wrong. He is following Vatican Council II. Even Bradley Eli and Jules Gomes accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally.
Bradley Eli on CMTV tells Jules Gomes that Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez will have to answer to God on the Day of Judgment for his liberalism. But Fernandez does not think he is doing anything wrong. He is following Vatican Council II. Even Bradley Eli and Jules Gomes accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally.
Pope Francis and Archbishop Fernandez are frank. They are following Vatican Council II, which is a break with Tradition for them. There is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council has exceptions for EENS. So EENS and the Athanasius Creed are obsolete. This is a revolution in the Church for them. Now even they can break the Church teachings on faith and morals, Amoris Laetia, Traditionis Custode etc. They are only following Vatican Council II as interpreted by even the traditionalists. This is also the interpretation of Church Militant TV and the Leftists. It is political.
The CMTV, even after being informed many times, does not state that there is a rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
They do not say that they affirm Vatican Council II rational, and so also Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
They want a break with Tradition for political reasons, just like Pope Francis. They call this irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II ‘magisterial’, this is even though the pre-1949 Magisterium interpreted the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance rationally and traditionally. - Lionel Andrades
_____________________
The SSPX priest did not point out that Pope Francis justified Amoris Laetitia and the Synods with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally: Rahner and Congar made the same mistake and so now are obsolete
VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONAL NOT MENTIONED
The SSPX priest in his sermon yesterday morning at the SSPX chapel in Rome was critical of Amoris Laetitia and Synod and I agreed with what he was saying. It was a good sermon, well researched. However he did not point out that the SSPX interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, just like Pope Francis. Then Pope Francis justifies the liberalism with Vatican Council II (irrational). The SSPX priest did not say that the Council could be interpreted rationally.
LIBERALISM IS JUSTIFIED WITH VATICAN COUNCL II IRRATIONAL ONLY
The main argument for liberalism in the Church is Vatican Council II (irrational). This is the arguement made by Pope Francis to justify his liberalism in faith, morals, ecclesiology, mission etc.The SSPX does not respond by citing Vatican Council II (rational) as an alternative.
The Instrumentum Laboris of the Synods was based on Vatican Council II (irrational).This was not mentioned by the new priest at the chapel yesterday.Why not?
May be it is because Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake and interpreted the Council only irrationally. The SSPX bishops are doing the same.
WHY MENTION RAHNER, CONGAR ETC WHO CHOSE VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONAL
A week back another SSPX priest at this chapel was critical of the liberals at Vatican Council II. But did not mention that they were interpreting the Council irrationally and dishonestly.
Why mention Rahner, Congar, Murray, Kung, Balthazar etc when the Council can be interpreted rationally? They were all interpreting the Council irrationally? They were all interpreting the Council irrationally like Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Archbishop Lefebvre.
WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE THE COUNCIL IS ALWAYS TRADITIONAL
Rahner and Congar are now obsolete. We can re-interpret the Council rationally and there is a hermeneutic of continuity with the past exclusivist ecclesiology and traditional mission. This is mission based upon there being only exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We simply choose the rational premise. It makes Rahner, Balthasar etc irrelevent.
We don’t have to follow Pope Francis’ New Evangelization which has its foundation on Vatican Council II (irrational). So he proclaimd Christ without the necessity of being a member in the Catholic Church.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SYNODS BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED IRRATIONALLY
We also do not have to accept the Synods based upon Vatican Council II, irrational. Since morally, the Council must only be interpreted rationally. So Pope Francis cannot justify Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia with Vatican Council II.The cardinals cannot do this any more.
The College of Cardinals and the new consistory for September must only interpret Vatican Council II rationally and take the Catholic Church back to Tradition. This is the only choice also before Cardinal-designate Victor Manuel Fernandez. - Lionel Andrades
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is in harmony with Tradition, the Council is Feeneyite irrespective of what Rahner, Congar, Ratzinger, Kung, Murray, Bea and others said or did there
Last Sunday morning at the Latin Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome Fr. Federico Montani was telling us about the mechanics at Vatican Council II i.e the political working of the liberals at the Council etc.
Who cares?
I could say to myself, 'Who cares anymore?
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is in harmony with Tradition, the Council is Feeneyite irrespective of what Rahner, Congar, Ratzinger, Kung, Murray, Bea and others said or did there.. –Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/last-sunday-morning-at-latin-mass-at.html
The SSPX must stop publishing magazines (La Tradizione Cattolica etc) with the Council interpreted irrationally and as a rupture with Tradition : Don Louis Sentagne and Don Pier Paulo Petrucci make the same mistake
The SSPX District Superior , Italy, Don Louis Sentagne, in Albano, Italy, Father Federico Montani and the other SSPX priests at Albano, Italy, are still selling books with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. This is unethical. It is dishonest.
MAGAZINE TRADIZIONE CATTOLICA IS BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II (IRRATIONAL)
The SSPX must stop publishing magazines (La Tradizione Cattolica etc), with the Council interpreted irrationally and so as a rupture with Tradition. They are doing this even after being informed.
SSPX PRIEST REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTION
The SSPX priest Fr. Federico Montani, in Rome at the SSPX chapel, when asked about LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc Vatican Council II will not respond. He will not clarify what is common sense i.e. LG 8, LG 14, lG 16, UR 33, NA 2, GS 22 etc, always refer to only hypothetical cases. They refer to invisible people in 2023.So they cannot be objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III, who also approved the Order of Preachers of St. Dominic Guzman.
He refuses to answer when asked and tells the youth there to also not answer this question.
NOVUS ORDO MASS CAN HAVE THE 12TH CENTURY ECCLESIOLOGY
The SSPX priests in Rome in their sermons also do not say that at the Novus Ordo Mass - if the priest would interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, old Councils and Catechisms and EENS rationally, he would be affirming the past ecclesiology of the Church. The priest at Mass in Italian, for example, would have to affirm the understanding of Church as it was known in the 12th to 16th century. This would be the Novus Ordo Mass having the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the 16th century. This would be the Roman Missal used in the SSPX chapel.
CARDINALS ROCHE, SARAH AND ARINZE ARE IRRATIONAL
It is only because Cardinal Arthur Roche interprets Vatican Council II irrationally that there is ‘a new Magisterium’ for him. It is his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, by confusing what is invisible as being visible, that he is able to produce a rupture with Tradition.
Now Cardinal Sarah and Cardinal Francis Arinze’ Holy Mass in Italian is based upon the false interpretation of Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils etc) and so there is a false rupture with Tradition, including the Missal used by the SSPX today.
SENTAGNE CANNOT CORRECT THE CARDINALS
The SSPX District Superior, Fr. Louis Sentagne cannot ask Cardinals Sarah, Arinze and Roche to come back to Tradition and interpret the Council rationally - since he himself is interpreting the Council irrationally.
MAINLINE CHURCH'S INNOVATION DEPENDS UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II (IRRATIONAL).
In the main line Church in Rome they give the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried, women living with non Christians and to non Christians in general who come up to receive the Eucharist. This is because Vatican Council II is seen as a break with Tradition. When Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition for the SSPX priests even, then in the main line Church they ask, why cannot they innovate on faith and morals. This creates division in the Church and the SSPX supports it.
TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
It is important to note, that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational. The majority of people interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. Even the popes, cardinals, bishops and priests in general, interpret LG 8, 14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, irrationally. They confuse these invisible cases as being visible in the present times. With this false premise there is a false non traditional conclusion. So the New Theology says outside the Church there is known salvation; there is salvation..-Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________________
Don Louis Sentagne and Don Federico Montani who offer the Latin Mass at the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in Rome are not saying that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical, theoretical, speculative and invisible cases in 1965-2023.This puts an end to so much of non-sense we have been hearing for a long time - the propaganda in the name of the Latin Mass.