Pope Francis is not accepting Vatican Council II as part of his ‘unique
charisma’ and is forcing his irrational interpretation upon the whole Church.
The Council can only be interpreted rationally. This is the only ethical
option. It is the same with Alberto Melloni of the FSCIRE ( Bologna School). There
is no denial from Melloni and he continues to interpret Vatican Council II
irrationally and unethically like Pope Benedict and the popes from Paul VI.
Pope Francis is not interpreting LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as
being only physically invisible cases in 2023.So LG 8 etc are not exceptions
for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council is not a rupture with
Tradition.
The mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of
Boston is not being corrected by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Invisible cased of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible
ignorance mentioned in the LOHO are not objective exceptions for Feeneyite
EENS. So the LOHO is not magisterial on this error.
FOUR IMPORTANT POINTS TO NOTE
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).
Consider these examples: 1) If there are seven patients in a TB sanatorium and one is cured then he is an exception there, not only because he is different but because he exists there in that ward. If he was not there he would not be an exception.
If there is an apple in a box of oranges then the apple is an exception in that box since it is different. If it was not there it would not be an exception. An invisible apple cannot be an exception.
Now we know that there are no visible cases of someone being saved, as referred to, in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. There are no such cases in our human reality. If anyone was saved as such it would only be known to God. So how can LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, be examples of salvation outside the Church? How can they be exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)? Invisible cases cannot be visible exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the exclusivist message also of the old Catechisms which are not contradicted by LG 8 etc, for me.
So for me there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
When we are back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology, there can be no New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Theology, New Evangelization, New Canon Law etc. Since the New Theology is based upon there being known salvation outside the Church, personally visible exceptions for the dogma EENS. The dogma EENS was made obsolete by confusing what is invisible as being visible.
So we are back to the old theology, with the old faith and morals. There is no denial from the FSCIRE, SSPX etc. There is no denial from the new Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. They agree with me.
If anyone is saved according to LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc, it can only be known to God. We cannot say that there is, for example, a St.Emerentiana in Heaven saved without the baptism of water. We cannot know on earth. No one has seen her in Heaven without the baptism of water.
We cannot say that the Good Thief (Dismas) is in Heaven without the baptism of water. We cannot know if he was baptized. Even if he was in Heaven without the baptism of water, we do not know of any Dismas in 1965-2023 who could be an exception for the dogma EENS.
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
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
Apologetics of Lionel Andrades which was not known to Fr. John Hardon sj, Fr. William Most, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/08/apologetics-of-lionel-andrades-which.html
Public mortal sin is not in step with Vatican Council II
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/08/public-mortal-sin-is-not-in-step-with.html
Pope Francis and the cardinals choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally in public. This is not permitted by Canon Law ? They must re interpret Church Documents rationally.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/08/how-can-there-be-pope-who-chooses-to_2.html
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?
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/08/how-can-there-be-pope-who-chooses-to.html
There are four important points to note before the Synod in October and the ordination of 21 new cardinals in September : we have a discovery
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/08/there-are-four-important-points-to-note.html
Pope Francis is not eligible to be pope when he chooses to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This is not Magisterial. This is not the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and contradict the centuries old magisterial teaching.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/pope-francis-is-not-eligible-to-be-pope.html
Quando il Concilio Vaticano II viene interpretato razionalmente, sono i progressisti/liberali che saranno fuori dalla Chiesa ei cattolici ortodossi al centro. Anche i conservatori come il cardinale Gerhard Muller, che interpretano irrazionalmente il Concilio Vaticano II, saranno fuori dalla Chiesa. I cardinali che oggi sono liberali e che in futuro interpreteranno razionalmente il Concilio, saranno dentro la Chiesa.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/quando-il-concilio-vaticano-ii-viene.html
When Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is the progressivist/liberals who will be outside the Church and the orthodox Catholics at the center. Even conservatives like Cardinal Gerhard Muller who interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, will be outside the Church.Cardinals who are liberals today and who in future will interpret the Council rationally, will be within the Church.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/incomplete-when-vatican-council-ii-is.html
The 21 new cardinals in September 2023 are in public heresy and schism. There is no denial from any of them. How can 18 of them be allowed to elect a new pope when they interpret Vatican Council, the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally ?
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-21-new-cardinals-in-septare-in.html
I 21 nuovi cardinali del settembre 2023 sono in pubblica eresia e scisma. Non c'è smentita da parte di nessuno di loro. Come si può consentire a 18 di loro di eleggere un nuovo papa quando interpretano irrazionalmente il Concilio Vaticano, i Simboli, i Concili ei Catechismi? https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/30-luglio-2023-i-21-nuovi-cardinali-del.html
Rorate Caeili and Roberto dei Mattei have posted another report in which they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/rorate-caeili-and-roberto-dei-mattei.html
When Archbishop Carlo Vigano says Vatican Council II should be scrapped, he pleases the liberals. Since he is projecting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. He is a Cushingite. He is choosing the Irrational Premise (invisible people are visible) and Irrational Inference (invisible cases of LG 16 etc are visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus). So his conclusion is nontraditional (Vatican Council II is a rupture and not a continuity with Tradition).
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/when-archbishop-carlo-vigano-says.html
Cardinals and bishops and especially the Ecclesia Dei communities must object to the ordination of cardinals in September.These bishops interpret Vatican Council II irrationally to avoid being labeled traditionalists.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/cardinals-and-bishops-and-especially.html
So before the Synod is held communities like the SSPX, FSSP, IKSP and traditional blogs and websites must clarify that they interpret Vatican Council II, with LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as referring to only hypothetical cases. They are not objective exceptions for Tradition. The Council has the hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma of EENS of the past Church Councils.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-purpose-of-what-i-write-here-on-this.html
Things have changed in the Church. You can know more tell me that you justify your liberalism with Vatican Council, since I can justify my orthodoxy, also with Vatican Council II
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/things-have-changed-in-church-you-can.html
Posts
