DECEMBER 2, 2023
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ? (Updated 02.12.2023 )
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.
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 16th 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.
Do you accept the Magisterium?
I accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not practical exceptions for EENS in 1949-2023. So I am interpreting EENS, BOD, BOB and I.I rationally and in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries.
I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being hypothetical. They are invisible cases in 1965-2023.So I am interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally. For me they both have the hermeneutic of continuity with the past. In the same way I accept and interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally.
The popes, cardinals and bishops must do the same. They are not Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Creeds and the old Catechisms irrationally and dishonestly.
I affirm the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed, which I interpret rationally. The popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and religious sisters must do the same.
I am a Catholic and in general I accept magisterial teachings.
How can the popes be wrong and you be correct?
We have Aristotle’s Principle of Non Contradiction as a measure. There must also not be a rupture between faith and reason. There must not be a rupture, also, with the Magisterium over the centuries.
On all these counts Pope Francis fails.
Pope Francis violates the Principle of Non Contradiction when he assumes invisible on earth, non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, are visible in Heaven and on earth at the same time.
Also for him invisible cases of being saved with the baptism of desire are visible on earth. People who are now in Heaven are visible on earth, at the same time for him. So they are practical exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for him.He needs practical exceptions otherwise he will be a Feeneyite on EENS but with the exceptions he violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
So his conclusion is that since there are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Fourth Lateran Council 1215 etc) outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation. There has to be known salvation outside the Church for him to have exceptions for the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. This is the New Theology for him.
I cannot see people saved, who are visible on earth and Heaven at the same time. I cannot see people in Heaven. For me there are no practical exceptions for the dogma EENS.
So 1) I am not saying I can see non Catholics saved in Heaven and earth at the same time. 2) I am not saying invisible people are visible.In general, this would be bad reasoning.3). I am in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries before 1949. They were Feeneyite like me and not Cushingite like Pope Francis.
So I not violating the Principle of Non Contradiction like the pope. I am not creating a rupture between traditional faith and reason. I am not using the Cushingite, false premise to produce new doctrines on salvation, which would be a rupture with the salvation doctrine as it was known to the Church Fathers and in the Middle Ages.Pope Francis cannot say the same.
Are you creating unity or division in the Church ?
There can only be unity with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. This is the honest option.
The Synods are justified with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and dishonestly. This cannot be the basis for unity in the Catholic Church.
Are you a traditionalist ?
We do not have to interpret Vatican Council II and Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils and Catechisms) like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.Rorate Caeili ( web blog) is obsolete too.I am not a Lefebvrist.They are Cushingites ( invisible people are visible for them). I am a Feeneyite ( invisible people in 2023 are invisible for me).
Una Voce, Latin Mass Societies, Roberto dei Mattei's publications and the Ecclesia Dei communities still follow the error of 1965 which Pope Paul VI did not correct.
I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and when possible the Latin Mass. I follow the old ecclesiology of the Church, irrespective of the liturgy or Mass.Since, the Council is in harmony with Tradition, for me, at every Mass and liturgy.
We are back to Traditional Mission ?
Yes. It is now Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. There is no more the New Evangelisation which is Christocentric only and not Ecclesiocentric too. It could not be ecclesiocentric when Vatican Council II was interpreted irrationally. This produced exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which was made obsolete, with this dishonesty.
The New Evangelisation based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, supported the New Ecumenism. With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, we return to the Old Ecumenism of Return to the Church.It is based upon the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II.
And the sedevacantists?
The sedevacantists Bishop Mark Pivarunas and his community, the CMRI, Bishop Donald Sanborn and the late Fr. Anthony Cekada and Peter and Michael Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. For them Lumen Gentium 8 etc is a break with Tradition. So the reject the Council ( irrational), while using the false premise to interpret Lumen Gentium 8 etc.
On the website of the CMRI there is a list of baptism of desire cases which are interpreted as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . But this is false. In reality the baptism of desire cases are always invsible for us human beings. But Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI continue with the error even after being informed.
We do not have to go only for the Latin Mass to be a traditionalist. Since Vatican Council II( rational) is in harmony with Tradition even at the Novus Ordo Mass.
Are you saying Islam is not a path to salvation and you contradict PISAI, Rome ?
The Catholic Church in Vatican Council II intterpreted rationally is saying Isla, is not a path to salvation. It's membes do not have Catholic faith and the baptism of water ( AG 7, LG 14) needed for salvation from Hell.All need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). This is the rational, Feeneyite ( invisible people are invisible) interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Pontifical Institute for Islamic and Arabic Studies, Rome is irrational and Cushingite ( invisi le cases are physically visible in the present times).
You are asking the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and the Angelus Press of the SSPX to issue a clarification/ correction ?
The books on Vatican Council II and those related to Vatican Council II published by the SSPX's Angelus Press, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise ( invisible people are visible). They are Cushingite and not Feeneyite( invisible people are invisible). Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally.
The Superior General of the SSPX today, taught the irrational version of Vatican Council II when he was the Rector of the SSPX seminary in Argentina.
And the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ?
Don Armando Matteo is the Secretary for the Doctrinal Section for this Dicastery ( formery the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). He was scheduled to speak at the Basilica San Andrea della Fratte, Rome ( Nov 25). He interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the Minim Fathers and Sisters at this basilica. At this church Our Lady appeared to Alphonse Ratisbonne was then a missionary and Feeneyite on EENS, the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
However the Holy Office (CSD/DDF) in its Letter to the Archbishop of Boston has been Cushingite and irrational.Cardinal Manuel Victor Fernandes z, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, also interprets Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms irrationally. This is not the doctrine of the Catholic faith.
The error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office is the theological basis for the New Evangelisation, New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Canon Law etc.Other religions are not paths to salvation ?
With the rational and Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II the Catholic Church is saying today, as in the past, that other religions are not paths to salvation.So for the post-Vatican Council II Catholic Church Jews and Muslims are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7 etc).They need to enter the Catholic Church as members ( LG 16 etc) before they die for salvation from Hell.
The Catholic Church is saying today that in general Muslims are lost without the baptism of water and Catholic faith (AG 7). If anyone among them is in Heaven, he or she would be a Catholic.In Heaven there are only Catholics ( AG 7 LG 14, CCC 845,846, Mk.16:16, John 3:5 etc).They are there with Catholic faith and the baptism of water and without mortal sin on their soul.
Mohammad the Muslim prophet died without faith and the baptism of water according to the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. He is lost forever.Vatican Council II also says that those who know about Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church and yet do not enter (LG 14) are not saved from Hell.Mohammad knew and yet he founded a new religion. Dante saw him suffering in Inferno.
There are orthodox passages along side hypothetical passages throughout Vatican Council II.If the orthodox passages which support the past ecclesiology are marked in blue and the passages which refer to hypothetical cases ( baptism of desire, saved in invincible ignorance etc) are marked in red, then the red does not contradict the blue.
We can no more cite the red passages to suggest that Mohammad was a known exception for the exclusive-salvation teaching of Ad Gentes 7. Ad Gentes 7 is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council ( 1215) and Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII. EENS today is like it was for the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church in Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) interpreted rationally i.e the red is not an exception for the blue.This has been the teaching of the popes and saints over the centuries, who affirmed the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS and interpreted invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire , as being invisible. This was common sense.
So BOD and I.I did not contradict the dogma EENS for St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Anthony Marie Claret, St.Maximillian Kolbe etc.
This has been the Biblical teaching ( John 3:5, Mark 16:16) now corroborated by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholoic Church and all they old Catechisms interprete rationally.
Future popes, cardinals, bishops and priests have to be Feeneyite and not Cushingite ?
Yes. How can they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. Cushingism ( invisible people are visible) produces heresy. It is schisms with the Magisterium over the centuries. It is not Apostolic.
The popes, cardinals , bishops etc in future have to be honest and interpret the Council rationally. The people will expect this of them.
The pontifical universities must be accademically ethical.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-lionel-andrades-interpretation.html
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION (GRAPHICS)
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
