Even Bradley Eli, Christine Niles and others at Church Militant TV do not meet the ‘morality’ requirements when they choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and deceptively, like Pope Francis, and then call it the Magisterium. How can Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise be Magisterial?

 Even Bradley Eli, Christine Niles and others at Church Militant TV do not meet the ‘morality’ requirements when they choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and deceptively, like Pope Francis, and then call it the Magisterium. How can Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise be Magisterial? Why don't they resign?

They do not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They also interpret Vatican Council II irrationally for CMTV's tax exempt status.

Since they cannot interpret the Council rationally, for political and other reasons, they too could  resign. 

The deception is public and it is a scandal.

Secondly, Church Militant was founded by Michael Voris. It belongs to him. If they found something objectionable, then in good conscience they could have resigned, and allow Michael Voris to handle it.

- Lionel Andrades

____________________

APRIL 10, 2023

Bradley Eli chooses deception. No ‘expose’ of CMTV by Christine Niles

Bradley Eli chooses deception. No ‘expose’ of CMTV by Christine Niles

Bradley Eli and Church Militant TV (CMTV) have been saying that they follow the Magisterium. How can it be magisterial to interpret Church Documents irrationally and produce liberalism in the Church, which was not there before 1949?

They are not letting the people know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally and the whole Church returns to Tradition immediately.

They themselves do not want to return to Tradition. They want to maintain good relations with the Left and the Vatican. This will not be possible if they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the 12^th to 16 th century Catholic Church.

So they will vaguely criticize Vatican Council II and not enter into theology. Since it will expose them as being heretics and schismatics. This is the result of the fake premise and inference.The whole Church is political and fallowing.

There is no ‘expose’ of this deception by Christine Niles nor is this ‘one of the lies and falsehoods’ Michael Voris wants ‘to trap’.

Upon exclusive salvation in the Church depends the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King, traditional mission and the non separation of Church and State.So the Left don't want it.

CMTV has a specific problem which can be recognized in public.Since if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, refer to hypothetical cases only, then they are traditionalist.They are conservative Catholics.

If Lumen Gentium 8 etc refer to physically visib le examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023, then they are liberals. The de fide teachings on exclusive salvation, of the past, are obsolete.

There is no decision on this issue from  Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj and the popes all these years.Since they were political and so dishonest and deceptive. This was not Catholic.The present interpretation of Vatican Council II is not Catholic.They are choosing to use the fake premise to produce a non traditional conclusion.

The New Evangelisation of Pope Francis, Cardinal Tagle and Archbishop Rino Fisichella is Christocentric and not also Ecclesiocentric.The false premise blocks out the traditional ecclesiocentrism.It produces the political rupture with Tradition.Then it is possible for the liberals  to have the New Ecumenism, New Theology, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology, New Canon Law etc. Even the traditionalists and sedevacantists  follow the fake interpretation  of Vatican Council II and not the rational option.They are not aware of the rational option.

Cardinal Ladaria has been promoting this error through the International Theological Commission, since the time of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. He needs to announce that extra ecclesiam nulla salus today is the same as it was for the missionaries and Magisterium, of the 16th century.Then the bark of Peter rights itself.

CMTV should contact Cardinal Ladaria and ask him the right questions. Of course, this is only if CMTV wants to be Catholic and not politically correct on Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades

APRIL 9, 2023

Bradley Eli will say that he is following the Magisterium. I will say the same. I too am following the Magisterium

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/04/bradley-eli-will-say-that-he-is.html

 APRIL 8, 2023

Bradley Eli at Church Militant TV needs to clarify his position

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/04/bradley-eli-at-church-militant-tv-needs.html

What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (UPDATED)

 

NOVEMBER 21, 2023

What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

 

What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

It is a different way of looking at LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.

Why is it different?

It sees LG 8,14, 15,16 etc as being only hypothetical cases. They refer to invisible people in 1965-2023. So they are not objective examples of salvation in the present times . They are not exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. They do not contradict the Council of Florence (1442) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

We cannot see any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) or where the Catholic Church subsists outside its visible boundaries (LG 8). If any one was saved outside the Church it could only be known to God.

So what ? Why is this important ?

Presently the popes, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. LG 8, 14,. 15, 16 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS. The Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX are made obsolete by them. So they imply that LG 8,14, 15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not invisible cases for them. This is irrational. The invisible- people- are- visible premise is unethical. But this is the common way to create the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

So what are the implications of the L.A interpretation?

We read the text of Vatican Council II differently. We also read the text of other Church Documents (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Catechism of Pope Pius X, etc) differently. If the hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II ( baptism of desire-LG 14 etc) are marked in red and the orthodox passages which support the past ecclesiology are marked in blue, then the red passages do not contradict the blue. Presently for most people , the red is an exception for the blue.

The Church has returned to the past faith and morals based upon exclusive salvation in only the Church.This was Apostolic. It is a return to the Church Fathers and to the missionaries of the 16th century.

Catholics can once again proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition.It is important for Governments and societies to be Catholic since in Heaven there are only Catholics ( AG 7, LG 16, CCC 845,846 etc).

We have returned to the past Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the necessity for all to be members of the Catholic Church; to believe in Jesus in the Catholic Church only, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).

There can now only be the old ecumenism of return and inter-religious dialogue will be missionary. The theological foundation will now be a Vatican Council II which is orthodox and Magisterial.

It means the present interpretation of the popes,

cardinals and bishops, is irrational and so non 

Magisterial.

So why did the Council Fathers in 1965 not know 

all this ? 

They  repeated the objective mistake made

in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being  visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or, EENS according to the Church Councils. The Church Councils (1215 etc) did not mention any exceptions.

Vatican Council II is no more liberal?

Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Lefebvre and the others at Vatican Council II in 1965 made a mistake when they accepted the New Theology of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Letter issued by the Holy Office (CDF/DCF) wrongly assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). This was an objective error. Then based upon this mistake, Pope Paul VI also assumed that there were exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So for him EENS had become obsolete since there was known salvation outside the Church, for him too. This was an irrational and liberal interpretation of the Council. Since we now know that we cannot meet or see any one saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Pope Paul VI also did not correct the error in the 1949 LOHO when he lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

So now we can interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, 14, 15, 16. UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being only invisible cases in 1965-2023. We have a rational choice. The conclusion is traditional and in harmony with EENS of the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16^th century.

Vatican Council II is no more liberal. For example, Bishop Stephen Brady of the Anglican Ordinariate interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and liberally. Then he expected Fr. Vaughn Treco to do the same. Since the Council interpreted irrationally would be a rupture with Tradition, as expressed by the priest. The priest refused to accept Vatican Council II (irrational) and stayed with Tradition. He was excommunicated.

The Council now supports Fr. Vaughn Treco when it is interpreted rationally. It is Bishop Brady, who is in heresy (rejection of EENS, changing the interpretation of the Creeds) with Vatican Council II, irrational. He is in schism with the past Magisterium and he can no longer cite the Council to support his new doctrines, which were rejected by Fr. Treco.

Those bishops who change the interpretation of the Creeds or do not affirm the Creeds in their original meaning are automatically excommunicated, according to the hierarchy of truths (Ad Tuendum Fidem) of Pope John Paul II.

-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-lionel-andrades-interpretation.html