Lionel's blog
Una Voce, the Latin Mass Society of Britain, Coetus International and
Tradition in Action are promoting Cushingite theology at the Latin Mass. Cushingism
is modernism. It is irrational. It’s use as a philosophy is dishonest. This is
public deception. This is a secular issue even if the pope, cardinals and
bishops follow the error. It still is a scandal. - Lionel Andrades
How can the Vatican legally interpret Vatican Council II ( LG
8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) with Cushingism and not Feeneyism ? How is
this allowed ? How can the FSCIRE and Cardinal Zuppi in Bologna do the same? - Lionel Andrades
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
There was no unity on Catholic doctrine and so the Fisher-More College
in the USA had to collapse. It was the bishop who should have been held accountable.
Legally, 1) he should have been asked to accept all Magisterial Documents and interpret them only rationally.2) He
should have been asked to identify the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy
Office to the Archbishop of Boston and reject it in public.
With Vatican Council II rational he would be affirming the ecclesiology
of the Roman Missal of the 16th century. - Lionel Andrades
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) was offiicially interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and they wanted the faculty at the Fischer More College to accept it. Bishop Olsen interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and allowed the college to collapse suggesting that the issue was doctrinal.He had approved the FSSP priests who were also interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise and were not rejecting the Council.-Lionel Andrades
I’ll just close by pointing out again that this is really about the old Mass and the life that flows from it. The diocese took no interest in the College until the Fort Worth Star Telegram feature ran and made it clear that the institution’s liturgical life is centered around the old Mass. The old Mass has been the primary topic of its conversation with the diocese since then. Whatever the other problems at the College, and whatever falsehoods and exaggerations they’re hearing from Dr. Marshall, the actions of Msgr. Berg and Bishop Olson (and presumably others above them in the hierarchy) leave no doubt that they are trying to crush the old Mass, and disperse a group of people who are living the traditional faith. If the Bishop was just concerned about the speakers, he could have set parameters for future speakers. If the Bishop was seriously concerned about the stability of the College, he would have ordered removal of the Blessed Sacrament and complete closure of the chapel, and forbidden the College from calling itself “Catholic.” He didn’t. What he did was attack the Mass and those of his flock attached to it. -Robert Drumm,
I resigned when moral, theological, and financial discrepancies came to light regarding the presidency of Michael King. I was an ex officio member of the Board so I knew what others did not. From May to early June of 2013, five of the eight College Board Members also resigned for two reasons:1) Mr. King refused to disassociate himself from the public statements of faculty member Dr. Dudley that claimed in his Year of Faith lecture that Catholic professors have the duty to teach young people that Vatican 2 is not a valid Council (he also endorsed other “resistance” positions regarding the Novus Ordo, John Paul II, etc.) 4
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the 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.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
JUNE 11, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II.
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.
2.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.
3.Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked?
No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).
4.How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.
5.Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.
6.What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).
7.What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.
8.Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
9.What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.
For the present two popes and the traditionalists the red is an exception to the blue. This is irrational.
10.What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?
Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.
Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.
11.What is the essence of this interpretation?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades
Fake premise
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.
Rational Premise
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/there-is-no-denial-from-congregation.html
Posts
