Sunday, October 1, 2023
All the cardinals are Feeneyite when they interpret Vatican Council II rationally. So the religious sisters will be Feeneyite, including the Daughters of St. Paul. Fernandez has to become a traditionalist. He cannot keep interpreting Vatican Council II unethically.
The Church has to go back to the past in theology since Vatican Council II can only be interpreted honestly. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always hypothetical cases only.
The College of Cardinals has to be Feeneyite and not Cushingite to elect a new pope. Cushingism is irrational, nontraditional, heretical, schismatic and unethical. It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Feeneyism is rational, traditional, orthodox and part of the Deposit of the Faith.
JULY 14, 2023
The College of Cardinals has to be Feeneyite and not Cushingite to elect a new pope. Cushingism is irrational, nontraditional, heretical, schismatic and unethical. It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Feeneyism is rational, traditional, orthodox and part of the Deposit of the Faith.
The College of Cardinals has to be Feeneyite and not Cushingite to elect a new pope. Cushingism is irrational, nontraditional, heretical, schismatic and unethical. It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith.
Feeneyism is rational, traditional, orthodox and part of the Deposit of the Faith.
Cushingism says what is invisible is visible. So Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible non Catholic saved outside the Church in 2023.
Feeneyism says what is invisible is invisible. So LG 16 refers to an invisible case in 2023.
When St. Thomas Aquinas referred to the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who would be saved, when God would send a preacher to him, he was referring to a hypothetical case. It was a physically invisible case for Aquinas. He did not confuse this invisible person as being visible.
So Aquinas was a Feeneyite on this issue.
It is the same for the saints who mention the baptism of desire (BOD). They saw BOD as referring to only a theoretical and speculative case. They did not project BOD as a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were Feeneyite on EENS and BOD.- Lionel Andrades
How can you have 21 new cardinals who change the Creeds with Cushingism and accept all the books on Vatican Council II interpreted with irrational Cushingism? They approve changes in Church Documents and have a New Missal based upon this error.
AUGUST 22, 2023
How can you have 21 new cardinals who change the Creeds with Cushingism and accept all the books on Vatican Council II interpreted with irrational Cushingism? They approve changes in Church Documents and have a New Missal based upon this error. They reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
How can you have 21 new cardinals who change the Creeds with Cushingism and accept all the books on Vatican Council II interpreted with irrational Cushingism? They approve changes in Church Documents and have a New Missal based upon this error.
They reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
According to Canon Law they must at least affirm the Creeds in their original. But the Athanasius Creed is rejected and the Nicene Creed is re-interpreted politically by them.
From whom do they get their authority to support this error? The Creeds are always only Feeneyite.
They have an obligation to interpret the Creeds rationally and so affirm the dogma EENS. Even if Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Balthazar and Lefebvre were Cushingites we can today interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Then there is no rupture with Feeneyite EENS. There is no break with the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. Our philosophy and theology is Feeneyite.
The SSPX bishops say they accept the Syllabus of Errors but they are Cushingites. So they are not correcting the Cushingism of the 21 new cardinals. They also interpret the Syllabus of Errors with Cushingism and not Feeneyism. This is modernism.
Why should be attend Mass offered by a cardinal who is a Cushingite in public?
How can he support polygamy, LGBT-sex etc in the name of Vatican Council II, Feeneyite? He cannot! The Council, Feeneyite, no more supports liberalism.
Cardinal Arthur Roche says there is a new magisterium with Vatican Council II, Cushingite.He wants everyone to follow him. His ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue is false. It needs to be based upon Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.Then it will be missionary in the traditional sense. It will be mission and out reach, based upon there being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. This would be the Conciliar teaching and not just the pre-Conciliar teaching. It will be mission according to Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).
Cardinal-designate Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot approve homosexual unions in the name of Vatican Council II, Cushingite. Morally, the Council has to be interpreted only with Feeneyism.
Cardinals Grech and Hollerich also cannot approve polygamy in the name of Vatican Council II, Feeneyite. The theological opening for liberalism is no more there. - Lionel Andrades
Pope Francis and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally and call it ‘the new Magisterium’.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2023
Pope Francis and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally and call it ‘the new Magisterium’.
Pope Francis and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez cannot interpret Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally and call it ‘the new Magisterium’. This is heresy. It is schism with the Magisterium over the centuries. It is also dishonest to interpret the Council irrationally to create a false break with Tradition. - Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Fernández claims opposition to Pope Francis’ ‘unique charism’ risks ‘heresy and schism’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-fernandez-claims-opposition-to-pope-francis-unique-charism-risks-heresy-and-schism/?utm_source=more_news&utm_campaign=usa
SEPTEMBER 9, 2023
The discovery
The discovery
We have a discovery today. It’s ‘a small point’ but this small point turns the Council around. From liberalism the Council returns to Tradition. So by ignoring this small point, we have liberalism in the Church. This small point, is the premise: the rational and irrational premise. It decides if Vatican Council II has a continuity or break with Tradition. This is the discovery. We now have a switch. We can turn it off or on. We can choose a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors or a rupture 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.
Bishop Anthony Lobo
Sent to Rome for Ministerial Priesthood by Bishop Anthony Lobo, bishop of Rawalpindi-Islamabad, Pakistan.
He is 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.
The seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X, Albano, are allowed to study at the pontifical universities in Rome since they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally and this is approved by the Left.
Propaganda Fide only gives schorlarship for all students/ seminarians who are approved by a bishop, who does not interpret Vatican Council II, rationally and expects seminarians to do the same.
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. The popes from Paul VI to Francis did the same. 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
Residence temporary : Missionaries of Charity (Contemplative) Men of Madre Teresa, Via di Sant’Agapito, 8, 00177 Roma RM ( near Largo Preneste and Termini) Italy.
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA
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
The cardinals and bishops, Fernandez included are already in heresy and schism
SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
The cardinals and bishops, Fernandez included are already in heresy and schism
- Lionel AndradesSEPTEMBER 9, 2023
The discovery
The discovery
We have a discovery today. It’s ‘a small point’ but this small point turns the Council around. From liberalism the Council returns to Tradition. So by ignoring this small point, we have liberalism in the Church. This small point, is the premise: the rational and irrational premise. It decides if Vatican Council II has a continuity or break with Tradition. This is the discovery. We now have a switch. We can turn it off or on. We can choose a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors or a rupture 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.
Bishop Anthony Lobo
Sent to Rome for Ministerial Priesthood by Bishop Anthony Lobo, bishop of Rawalpindi-Islamabad, Pakistan.
He is 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.
The seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X, Albano, are allowed to study at the pontifical universities in Rome since they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally and this is approved by the Left.
Propaganda Fide only gives schorlarship for all students/ seminarians who are approved by a bishop, who does not interpret Vatican Council II, rationally and expects seminarians to do the same.
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. The popes from Paul VI to Francis did the same. 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
Residence temporary : Missionaries of Charity(Contemplative) Men of Madre Teresa, Via di Sant’Agapito, 8, 00177 Roma RM ( near Largo Preneste and Termini) Italy.
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SOLAMENTE LA CHIESA CATTOLICA
Consistory of 21 cardinals : All of them are interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and politically. How can this be valid according to Canon Law ?
Il parroco è d'accordo con me. Non ci sono casi visibili di essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e nel battesimo del desiderio nei tempi attuali.
1 OTTOBRE 2023
Il parroco è d'accordo con me. Non ci sono casi visibili di
essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e nel battesimo del desiderio nei
tempi attuali. Ieri ho parlato con Don Paulo Boumis, parroco della chiesa di
San Agapito, a Roma. Non ha avuto obiezioni quando detto che il battesimo del
desiderio (BOD) e la salvezza nell'ignoranza invincibile (I. I) si riferivano a
casi invisibili. Sono sempre ipotetici. Era d'accordo con me.
Questo punto è centrale nel mio scritto.
Cosi lui è d'accordo con me quando affermo che il battesimo di
desiderio e salvezza nell’invincibile ignoranza,non fanno eccezione alla
tradizionale interpretazione rigida del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
(EENS).
Nel 2003 vivevo nella casa maschile delle Missionarie della
Carità (contemplativa) di Madre Teresa, che si trova in questa parrocchia. A
quel tempo credevo nel dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e sapevo che questo
insegnamento non poteva essere cambiato. Eppure la Lumen Gentium 16 lo
contraddice. Quindi l’EENS era obsoleto a Roma per il cardinale Ratzinger.
Col tempo, con l'aiuto di Gesù, della Madonna e del mio Angelo Custode, ho avuto un'intuizione. Ciò mi è stato confermato da un sacerdote. Mi
sono reso conto che LG 14, LG 16 ecc. era sempre ipotetici. Così la Lettera del
Sant'Uffizio all'arcivescovo di Boston, relativa a p. Leonard Feeney (LOHO), ha
commesso un errore. Il BOD e I.I non contraddicono Feeneyite EENS.
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Bea, Balthazar, Lefebvre e Kung
hanno commesso un errore quando non hanno corretto l'errore nel LOHO del 1949. L’hanno
invece ripetuto nel Concilio Vaticano II. Sembra che si voglia eliminare il
dogma EENS in ogni modo possibile.
Per me, non c'era nulla nel Concilio Vaticano II che contraddicesse l'EENS Feeneyista. Non c'erano eccezioni per l'EENS del Concilio Lateranense IV (1215).
LA SUA CATECHESI È
UNA ROTTURA CON IL PASSATO. LA MIA È UNA CONTINUITÀ
Quindi stavo dicendo a p. Paulo che quando questo mese terrà
la catechesi per gli adulti in parrocchia, interpreterà il Concilio Vaticano II
come una rottura con l'EENS. Nelle mie catechesi, il Concilio ha una continuità
con l'EENS e il resto della Tradizione. Per lui LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,
GS 22 ecc si riferirebbero a 1) casi fisicamente visibili; 2) persone
conosciute salvate al di fuori della Chiesa e 3) eccezioni pratiche per il
dogma EENS, il Credo di Atanasio ecc. È solo con questa irrazionalità che si
potrebbe creare una rottura con la Tradizione.
Per me LG 8,14,16 ecc. si riferirebbe a casi invisibili,
persone sconosciute e invisibili e quindi non fanno eccezione al passato
ecclesiocentrismo, alla passata ecclesiologia esclusivista della Chiesa Cattolica.
ITNERPRETARE IL CONCILIO VATICANO II CON FEENEYISMO O
CUSHINGISMO
Mi rendo
conto che sono l'unico in parrocchia a interpretare razionalmente il Concilio
Vaticano II. Gli altri in parrocchia interpretano irrazionalmente il Concilio
Vaticano II come i papi e i Prefetti del Dicastero per la Dottrina della Fede
(già CDF), Vaticano.
IL PARROCO INTERPRETA IRRAZIONAMENTE I DOCUMENTI MAGISTRALI
Ho informato il parroco che stavo affermando tutti i Documenti
Magistrali che avevo interpretato razionalmente (le persone invisibili sono
invisibili, LG 16 ecc si riferisce a casi invisibili nel 2023). Mentre lui ha
accettato tutti i Documenti Magistrali e li ha interpretati in modo
irrazionale.
PAPA PIO XII NON MAGISTRALE SUL BDD E I.I
La LOHO del 1949 non era magistrale quando prevedeva che BOD e
I.I fossero eccezioni per EENS. Posso accettare la prima parte della LOHO che
affermava l'EENS tradizionale. Poiché la seconda parte è irrazionale e
contraddice la prima, non può essere magistrale. La conclusione della LOHO del
1949 è che non è necessario che tutti siano membri della Chiesa per la
salvezza. Questo è eretico e scismatico.
Si tratta di una rottura con il Magistero della Chiesa Cattolica precedente al 1949, che sosteneva la tradizionale interpretazione
esclusivista dell’EENS.
Quando Papa Pio XII permise alla LOHO del 1949 di proiettare
casi invisibili di BOD e I. I come eccezioni fisicamente visibili per EENS, non
era Magisterale. Quindi il Concilio Vaticano II non è Magistrale quando è
interpretato con questo ragionamento irrazionale.
I preti della parrocchia, bisogna accettano l'errore
della LOHO, interpreteranno il Concilio Vaticano II come una rottura con “la
fede dei Padri”. Per loro c'è rottura in ogni Messa, rito e liturgia. Ciò è
previsto quando accettano la Nuova Teologia della LOHO che si basa su una falsa
premessa. Evito la falsa premessa. Con la premessa razionale ritorno all'Antica
Teologia e agli insegnamenti dei santi, dei papi, dei Padri della Chiesa e
degli Apostoli.
NON POTEVA NEGARE CHE IL BOD AND I.I SONO SEMPRE INVISIBILE
È stato difficile per p. Paulo ad accettare che il suo
insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II, sostenuto da tutta la Chiesa, non era
magisterale. Eppure non poteva negare che il BOD e l'I.I sono sempre
invisibili.
Vent'anni fa in parrocchia mi è stato detto che BOD e I.I
erano eccezioni per EENS. Ora 20 anniÈ stato difficile per p. Paulo ad
accettare che il suo insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II, sostenuto da tutta
la Chiesa, non era magisteriale. Eppure non poteva negare che il BOD e l'I.I
sono sempre invisibili.
OCTOBER 1, 2023
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
