How can
there be a pope who chooses to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally in public
and expects all the cardinals, bishops and priests to do the same? How can he
qualify to be a pope ? He must set an example for all. He must interpret all
Church Documents rationally.
I
accept Pope Francis as the pope but he must affirm LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS
22 etc in Vatican Council II as referring to only hypothetical cases. So they
are not practical exceptions for the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215).They do not contradict the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors
of Pope Pius IX ( 24Q,27Q).
Pope
Francis is changing the interpretation of the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed
and the Nicene and Apostles Creed.He does this by confusing what is invisible as being visible. This is a mortal sin
of faith. He must end the scandal with a public announcement and receive absolution in the Sacrament of
Confession.
There are
four important points to note which I have mentioned in a previous blog post.
They are:-
1. If LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2,
GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are seen as hypothetical cases always then they are not
practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed, the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X
and the rest of Tradition. Invisible cases of LG 8,14,15,16
etc cannot
be visible exceptions for EENS.
2. If LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS
22 etc refer to
hypothetical and invisible cases then the Nicene Creed does not change when it
states , ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’. It is a
reference to the baptism of water.
But if LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible and objective examples of
salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023, then Vatican Council II (irrational) is a rupture with the Nicene Creed. There are objective cases of LG 8,14,15,16
etc., which
are a rupture with the Nicene Creed. Since the Creed will now mean, “ I believe in three or
more baptisms ( desire, blood, invincible ignorance etc) which are physically
visible and exclude the baptism of desire and so contradict Feeneyite EENS', or, EENS according to the
Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442)’.
INTERPRETATION OF CATECHISMS
CHANGE
In the same way the
interpretation of Vatican Council II, irrational, changes the understanding of
the Apostles Creed, the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, the Catechism of Pope
Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q and 29 Q) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (
845,846,1257, 847,848 etc). The Catechisms can be interpreted with Feeneyism (invisible people are invisible) or Cushingism (invisible people are visible).
WE CAN CHOOSE THE HERMENEUTIC
OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION
3. We now know how to create the
hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition. We choose from either of
them.
THERE CAN BE TWO
INTERPRETATIONS OF MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS
4. There can be two
interpretations of Magisterial Documents. They can be interpreted rationally or irrationally. The popes,cardinals and
bishops choose the irrational version. So there is the hermeneutic of rupture
with Tradition. I choose the rational option. So there is the hermeneutic of
continuity with Tradition.
So for me
Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus (EENS).
This is EENS as held by
Brother Andre Marie micm, Superior of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary, St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire and Brother Peter Dimond,
apologist at the Most Holy Family Monastery, New York. The pope, cardinals and
bishops cannot say the same.Also for Brother Peter Dimond the Council is a break
with Tradition ( EENS etc).
THIS IS A
DISCOVERY.
So this is a discovery before
the Synod in October where all the participants will interpret
Vatican Council II and the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally and so dishonestly. It will be the same at the
ordination of the 21 new cardinals in September.There will 18 of these 21
cardinals who will be allowed to elect a pope. These 18 cardinals like Pope
Francis:-
1. Interpret LG 8,14,15,16, UR
3, NA 2, GS 22 etc irrationally and not rationally.
2. They also re-interpret the
Creeds, Councils, dogma EENS, the baptism of desire and beings saved in
invincible ignorance and the Catechisms, irrationally and not rationally.They re-interpret Magisterial
Documents irrationally.
3. They choose the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
This is first class heresy
according to the heirarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II ( Ad Tuendem
Fidem).They do not have a right to offer Holy Mass. This is a scandal.
According to Canon Law they are juridical persons and so have to affirm the Catholic faith in public to remain in office. -Lionel Andrades
This can be see clearly in four models models.
1. Two Columns.
2. The Red is not an exception for the blue.
3. Feeneyism and Cushingism.
4. Irrational and Rational premise.
Two Columns
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/repost-pope-francis-changes-doctrine.html
The Red is not an exception for the Blue
Feeneyism and Cushingism
FEBRUARY 19, 2018
I am referring to Feeneyism and Cushingism as explained on my blog.The fault does not lie with Vatican Council II in itself. It depends upon how you interpret the Council, whether you use Cushingism or Feeneyism. Cushingism results in the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION (GRAPHICS)
NOVEMBER 2, 2016
When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism. When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.
SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 2021
The mainstream Church is liberal today because of the fake premise. Let them use a rational premise and the liberalism falls off from the whole Church
The mainstream Church is liberal today because of the fake premise. Let them use a rational premise and the liberalism falls off from the whole Church.
Fake premise
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.
Rational Premise
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
_______________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2021.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively invisible in 2021.
___________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2021.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown cases in 2021.There is no personally known case.
__________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is assuming others (in general) cannot see invisible cases in the present and the past.It is assuming that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown and invisible case in the present or past.
When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.
When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________
Posts
