A
cardinal who votes at a Conclave to elect a pope must legally be honest. He
must be a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite. He must interpret Vatican Council II
rationally and not irrationally. - Lionel Andrades
MAY 20, 2024
Definition : fake premise, inference and conclusion and the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
The common fake premise is – invisible people are physically visible in 2024.
The common fake inference is – there are physically visible non Catholics in 2024 saved outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
So the conclusion; the expected false conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. This is a New Theology in the Church. It says outside the Church there is known salvation.
All this reasoning I call Cushingism. This process of bad reasoning is common among the Cushingite popes, cardinals and bishops.
The rational premise is – invisible people are invisible in 2024. Lumen Gentium 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.
The rational inference is – there are no physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 2024 without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
The traditional and rational conclusion is that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. There are no objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1441), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q ) and the rest of Tradition.We are back to the old theology of the Roman Missal.
I call this reasoning Feeneyism.
Feeneyism and Cushingism, for me, refer to a way of thinking and not the two well known persons, Cardinal Richard Cushing and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with Feeneyism. Cardinal Richard Cushing and the popes from Pius XII interpreted them with Cushingism.
I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16 etc are invisible in 2024). Pope Paul VI and the popes who followed used Cushingism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14 are physically visible in 1965-2024).
In the 1920s and 1930's the Catholic Church was Feeneyite. Today it is Cushingite.
-Lionel Andrades
Mary, Mother of the Church
APRIL 30, 2024
Why should the rank and file Catholic confuse what is invisible as being visible, subjective as being objective, unseen as being seen, implicit as being explicit ? Cardinal Napier still feels obligated to do this.
Cardinal Wilfred Napier o.f.m will hopefully be present at the next Conclave of Cardinals to elect a pope, when hopefully they will interpret Vatican Council II only rationally. The former Archbishop of Durban, South Africa will not vote since he has crossed the age limit. I met him on the Rome metro twice and briefly spoke to him and have communicated with him on Twitter, a few years back. He was afraid of being considered a Feeneyite instead of the common Cushingite.
So the whole of South Africa was being given a false catechism and the Gospel was not being preached .Since the cardinal wanted to protect his career and worldly interests. A typical cardinal.
Can you imagine Cardinal Napier saying in S. Africa that all non Catholics need Catholic faith and the baptism of water ( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) for salvation and that hypothetical cases, invisible people in 1949-2024, are not visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Even the other conservative cardinal, Raymond Leo Burke, is preserving his peace.
Cardinal Napier still teaches error to preserve his ecclesiastical status and is not willing to dialogue on this issue.
One day, when all the cardinals realize that Vatican Council II (rational) is the only honest choice they have, the Church automatically returns to Tradition.
Now Cardinal Napier and the other cardinals are allowing Catholic children to be taught a false catechism, to please the political Left.
The issue now – no more is conservative and liberal cardinals in opposition. Since Vatican Council II is no more liberal, it is no more dividing the Church. Every cardinal is obligated to interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial Documents, only rationally and not irrationally i.e. LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, always refer to hypothetical cases in 2024.
The liberal cardinals can no more interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being physically visible and known cases in 2024.
Why should the rank and file Catholic confuse what is invisible as being visible, subjective as being objective, unseen as being seen, implicit as being explicit ? Card. Napier still feels obligated to do this. - Lionel Andrades
JULY 15, 2023
The College of Cardinals can no more interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and neither elect a pope who does the same.
JULY 12, 2023
The College of Cardinals can no more interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and neither elect a pope who does the same.
The College of Cardinals can no more interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and neither elect a pope who does the same.
The people now know that Vatican Council II can be rationally. So there is the Catholic obligation to interpret Vatican Council II etc only rationally and traditionally. So for the popes and cardinals have to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) which did not mention any exceptions.
They also have to reject the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston which wrongly assumed of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the Church Councils ( Council of Florence 1442 etc). - Lionel Andrades
JULY 11, 2023
The College of Cardinals are not eligible to vote at the next Conclave to elect a pope, if they are dishonest and interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. They must interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as not referring to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 16 etc, are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. There is no rupture with the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X. So future cardinals would have to be only traditionalists.
The College of Cardinals are not eligible to vote at the next Conclave to elect a pope, if they are dishonest and interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. They must interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as not referring to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 16 etc, are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. There is no rupture with the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X. So future cardinals would have to be only traditionalists.
The cardinals were unethical on Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Councils, Catechisms, and EENS etc when they elected Pope Francis. They were interpreting Church Documents irrationally and non traditionally. This was political.
The cardinals are presently in public mortal sins of faith.They are in heresy and schism and it is official. They cannot condone this any more with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. The people know that the Council can be interpreted rationally. This is the only moral choice the cardinals have.
ATHANASIUS CREED TWO INTERPRETATIONS
For me the Athanasius Creed says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). For the cardinals all do not need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. Since for them there are known and visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1949-2023.
For the Nicene Creed says ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins ‘For me it refers to only the baptism of water which is physically visible and repeatable. For them there are three or more baptisms which exclude the baptism of water. They are the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. These are physically visible baptisms for them and so they contradict Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). This Council did not mention any exceptions.These ‘visible-invisible’ baptisms; known examples of salvation in the present time for us human beings, are also extended to LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, for the cardinals.
APOSTLES CREED WITH TWO INTERPRETATIONS
For me the Apostles Creed refers to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church which still teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. For the cardinals the message is outside the Church there is known salvation, exceptions for the pre-1949 magisterial understanding on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So I am in harmony with the pre-1949 Magisterium, and they are in schism.
For me the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q and 29 Q on outside the Church there is no salvation) is not contradicted by 24Q (invincible ignorance etc). For them there is a contradiction.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism) is not contradicted by the references to hypothetical and invisible cases mentioned in the line ‘God is not limited to the Sacraments ‘. For them CCC 1257 is contradictory and confusing.
HERETICAL NEW CARDINALS IN SEPTEMBER
In this heretical and schismatic condition there will be new cardinals in September and they include Cardinal-designate Vincent Manuel Fernandez, the new Prefect of the Dicastery for Doctrine and Faith. He needs to recant. The other cardinals need to do the same. Fernandez is in first class heresy according to the Pope John Paul II’s, Ad Tuendem Fidem, which mention a hierarchy of truths for Catholics to follow. Fernandez does not have the Catholic faith. This is a scandal. To re-interpret the Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc is a kind of apostasy. Cardinals who do not affirm the Creeds in their original meaning should not be allowed to offer Holy Mass.
PERMISSION TO OFFER HOLY MASS
Roberto dei Mattei states:
As regards the Mass una cum Bergoglio, the lawyer Patruno gives a good explanation of the passage of St Thomas, often quoted inappropriately, according to which anyone sins who hears Mass or receives the sacraments from heretical, schismatic or excommunicated ministers (Summa Theologiae, III, q.82, a.9). The passage refers to heretics, schismatics and the excommunicated who are deprived of the exercise of their powers by a sentence of the Church. Until this definitive pronouncement has been made, one may to go to Mass and receive the sacraments from priests subjectively considered heretical, etc. Communicatio in sacris with heretics is illicit when a sentence of the Church has declared them as such, but until that moment it is licit to receive communion from them and hear their Mass.
Pope Francis, the lawyer Patruno judiciously asserts, may be a debated figure, but “until there is the sententia ecclesiae, no one - layman or ordinary priest - may substitute himself for the teaching Church” (p. 213). At the most, the opinion that one might have about Francis could count as the opinion of a private scholar. But no man, apart from the pope, is by nature infallible: only the pope is, under certain conditions, when he exercises his mandate. Moreover, there can be no Church without a pope, and if today the pope is not Francis, who is or will be? These are unavoidable questions to which a “charismatic” answer cannot be given, outside the most elementary notions of theology and canon law.
Cardinals, who do not interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, the Catechism and Church Documents rationally and so traditionally, should not be allowed to offer Holy Mass.
Cardinals who reject the ecclesiology of the old Roman Missal, which is in harmony with the Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, should not be allowed to offer Holy Mass in any Rite.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Robert Sarah, Walter Kasper, Francis Arinza, Blaise Cupich, Gerhard Muller, Raymond Leo Burke and Luiz Ladaria should not be allowed to offer Holy Mass, until they affirm the Faith and so correct the scandal.
The most reasonable path to follow in this painful situation seems to be the one traced by the Correctio filialis of 16 July 2017 (http://www.correctiofilialis.org/it/), a firm and respectful document presented by 40 scholars, later becoming more than 200, to urge the Holy Father to reject the heresies and errors he has promoted. This initiative deserves to be taken up again, but above all adopted by a suitable number of cardinals and bishops, not in order to “depose” the pope, but to admonish him filially, following the example of St Paul towards St Peter (Ad Gal 2:14).
The Cardinals like Pope Francis, of course, all these years, have been justifying their heresies with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
The signatories of the Correctio Filiale cannot correct Pope Francis and the cardinals, until they also interpret Church Documents rationally. I have mentioned this before and there is no comment or denial from them.They are making the same mistake on Vatican Council II etc, as the cardinals and Pope Francis. This is also the error of Roberto dei Mattei, Peter Kwasniewski, Taylor Marshall, John Henry Weston, Michael Matt, Michael Voris and others.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-college-of-cardinals-is-not.html
______________________________________________________
How can Cardinals Vincent Nichols, Robert Sarah, Walter Kasper, Francis Arinza, Blaise Cupich, Gerhard Muller, Raymond Leo Burke and Luiz Ladaria accept Archbishop Victor Fernandez as the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith when he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. This is a public and official error of the DDF.
How can Cardinals Vincent Nichols, Robert Sarah, Walter Kasper, Francis Arinza, Blaise Cupich, Gerhard Muller, Raymond Leo Burke and Luiz Ladaria accept Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez as the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith when he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally? This is a public and official error of the DDF.This is unethical and not Catholic. There is no denial from the DDF.
If he did not interpret Vatican Council II irrationally he would be a Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Council interpreted rationally supports the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X.
By 2025, the Jubilee Year, the traditionalists could be told that they are ‘religious fanatics’ since they do not (correctly) accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. So they could be outside the Church officially according to the leftist secular administration in Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities at the Vatican.
The old moral theology would be considered ‘immoral’ by Fernandez since it is contradicted by Vatican Council II ( irrational). He does not mention that his new moral theology would become obsolete when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally. - Lionel Andrades
JULY 12, 2023
Cardinals Vincent Nichols, Robert Sarah, Walter Kasper, Francis Arinze, Blaise Cupich, Gerhard Muller, Raymond Leo Burke and Luiz Ladaria should not be allowed to offer Holy Mass, until they affirm the Faith and so correct the scandal. They are all interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally.
Cardinals Vincent Nichols, Robert Sarah, Walter Kasper, Francis Arinze, Blaise Cupich, Gerhard Muller, Raymond Leo Burke and Luiz Ladaria should not be allowed to offer Holy Mass, until they affirm the Faith and so correct the scandal. They are all interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally. They are changing the Deposit of the Faith on Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Councils, Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, baptism of desire etc and so Michael Voris and Church Militant TV are doing the same.
When the Council is interpreted rationally it supports Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. There is no theological opening for polygamy, same sex unions etc. Vatican Council II can no more be used to support this immorality. -Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/cardinals-vincent-nichols-robert-sarah.html
______________________________________________________
THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2024
The popes made Vatican Council II a break instead of a continuity with Tradition : Pope John XXIII interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance irrationally.
Curial horror greeted John XXIII's announcement of ecumenical council
Pope John XXIII prays in the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls on Jan. 25, 1959, just before announcing his plans to convoke the Second Vatican Council. The pope cited a need to update the church and promote Christian unity. (CNS file photo)
VIEWPOINT
This is the first of an occasional series of articles about the Second Vatican Council that will appear this year in NCR leading up to 50th anniversary of the council's opening on Oct. 11, 2012. In October, NCR will publish a special edition devoted solely to the council's 50th anniversary. Read more about it here.
Wednesday, the Catholic church should have celebrated -- but didn't -- an important anniversary, the day 53 years ago when Pope John XXIII invited 18 Curia cardinals to accompany him to a ceremony at St. Paul Outside the Walls. It was the feast day of St. Paul, who is believed to have been executed in Rome about 67 A.D. and buried where the basilica named after him now stands.
It was also the final day of the Octave for Christian Unity, an objective close to the pope's heart. Presumably because of the attendance of so many Vatican higher-ups, the ceremony lasted longer than usual. The result was that the content of the carefully timed announcement the pope made to the cardinals had been released to the media before the cardinals were told.
What they heard stunned them. The new pope -- he had been elected only three months earlier -- told them he intended to summon an ecumenical council and would they please give him their views about it.
One would not need to be in the Vatican very long before knowing what the cardinals would think about an ecumenical council. If they had been asked to vote on it, they might have turned their thumbs firmly down.
Instead, they looked at the pope, first in amazement and then in horror. At any time the Curia has disfavored ecumenical councils. Councils denote change and to the Curia change is anathema. It suggests that the existing situation is not perfect, and to the Curia the church is perfect. A council also suggests the pope needs bishops to advise him. The Curia view, especially since 1870 when papal infallibility was promulgated, is that the pope himself can make any necessary decision, so there is no further need for councils. And any suggestion that people outside the walls of the Vatican needed to be consulted was a slur on the Curia, which liked to regard itself as participating in that creeping papal infallibility.
Lionel: Pope John XXIII was interpreting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance irrationally. He did not correct the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). It was issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
The same mistake which Pope John XIII ignored i.e. invisible cases are confused as being physical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is repeated at Vatican Council II, by Pope Paul VI.
The liberalism in the Catholic Church has come from the mistake in the 1949 LOHO which Pope Paul VI repeated in 1965. We can now avoid it by interpreting the Council rationally.
___________________________
What mostly astounded the cardinals was that a pope nobody had expected to produce any surprises should make such a major decision. Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was far from being numbered among the papabili, the leading contenders in the conclave of October 1958 to elect a successor to Pius XII. It was only on the third day of the conclave, when the voting became deadlocked, that his name was mentioned. He himself was astonished. He had come to Rome on a return train ticket and with only an overnight bag, expecting to be back in Venice after two days. He didn't expect to be pope. And he didn't want to be.
The cardinals who supported him had voted for a man they considered would be an interim pope, creating no waves in a church recovering from the frenetic pontificate of Pius XII. In his 19 years on the throne of St. Peter, Pius had not thought it necessary to summon an ecumenical council. Why then, thought the cardinals in St. Paul that morning in 1959, did this old man -- he was then 77 -- want to go stirring things up when all they wanted was a few years of peace to let things settle down? No wonder they were speechless as the new man dropped his bombshell.
John claimed later that he had expected that the cardinals, "after hearing our allocution, might have crowded round to express approval and good wishes." Instead, he added, "there was a devout and impressive silence. Explanations came on the following days." This evaluation of the cardinals' reaction is either very charitable or, more likely, a somewhat rueful remark from an old countryman who was nobody's fool.
Lionel: The cardinals had ignored the mistake in the 1949 LOHO. Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not aware of the mistake and his irrational interpretation of the Council in 1965.
____________________
He maintained this attitude to the end. Nearly three years later, Oct. 11, 1962, when he formally opened the council, he said the decision to call it "came to us in the first instance in a sudden flash of inspiration." And recalling the silent reaction of the cardinals, he added serenely, if implausibly, "The response was immediate. It was as though some ray of supernatural light had entered the minds of all present: It was reflected in their faces; it shone from their eyes."
Lionel: ‘The silent reaction of the cardinals’. Even today they are silent.Even after 60-plus years the cardinals do not see the objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO which was repeated in 1965 by Pope Paul VI.
________________________
The accounts of council historians do not support such a benevolent portrayal of the Curia's contribution to the work of the Second Vatican Council. From the start it worked to preempt the council. It proposed 10 commissions, each with 24 members, to run the council and helpfully nominated Curia people to most of the positions. It submitted 70 documents for the council's consideration. And it trusted the council could be completed in one session.
Lionel: The Council is orthodox and traditional when it is interpreted rationally.
_________________________
The Curia's preemptory bid to take control of the council in one suave swoop was stopped in its tracks. As soon as it was made, two European cardinals, Achille Liénart of Lille, France, and Josef Frings of Munich, Germany, protested. Bishops from the four corners of the world, 2,500 of them, had come to Rome for the council. They had not had a chance to get to know each other. How could they decide who would be best for what commission? They needed a few days to consider the options.
The council bishops, some of whom had never before been in the overwhelming surroundings of St. Peter's, and most of whom were bewildered by the enormity and complexity of what they were faced with, reacted with delight. The Curia proposals, including the membership of the commissions and the 70 draft decrees were swept aside. The amendment to postpone the opening of the council for two days was carried with a massive majority. The bishops streamed out of St. Peter's to gather outside in the vast piazza in excited knots to discuss what had happened. The first meeting of Vatican II, which was to meet in three-month sessions over the next four years, was finished. It had lasted some 17 minutes.
Lionel: They made a mistake when they cited LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II and then made another mistake, when they interpreted LG 8,14,15,16 as being practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when really these are only hypothetical cases. The pope from Paul VI to Francis have approved this error.They made Vatican Council II a break, instead of continuity with Tradition.-Lionel Andrades
[Desmond Fisher is a former editor of The Catholic Herald, London, and a former head of current affairs at Radió Telefís Éireann.]
No comments:
Post a Comment