Roberto dei Mattei still interprets Vatican Council II
irrationally, like the Rome Vicariate, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez and the
parish priest at the church where he has his office in Rome.
That he goes for the Latin Mass makes no difference?
He wrote a book on Vatican Council II which was
Cushingite. He is still selling it.
There is no discussion or dialogue on this subject. - Lionel Andardes
JUNE 24, 2021
For Roberto dei Mattei at the conferences with the Franciscans of the Immaculate Vatican Council II was only a pastoral Council and not dogmatic : we now know it is in harmony with EENS when interpreted without the false premise
Roberto dei Mattei wrote a book on Vatican Council II in which he did not avoid the false premise.The book was written with the fake premise. He could have avoided the error if he knew about it.There is no correction or apology from him. He continues to interpret the Council with the error instead of without the error.He will not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It's the same for Chris Ferrara,Michael Matt and the other
Lefebvrists.
The conferences with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in which Vatican Council II was described as only a pastoral Council, was in error.Vatican Council II is a dogmatic Council in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions and the Syllabus of Errors with no exception. - Lionel Andrades
APRIL 13, 2018
There is no apology or correction from Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara for the books they wrote on Vatican Council II.They need to apologise for their ignorance, which was innocent.
There is no apology or correction from Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara for the books they wrote on Vatican Council II.They need to apologize for their ignorance, which was innocent.There was no one there to correct them at that time.But now they know and should clarify that it was an error.
Now they know that if the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) refers to invisible or visible cases, decides how Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) will be interpreted.
Since BOD,BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II became an exception to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.LG 8, LG 16 etc were considered visible people known to be saved outside the Catholic Church. It was initially wrongly assumed, by Mattei and Ferrara,that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to visible cases, exceptions to EENS.
This was an irrational premise.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions or relevant to traditional EENS, since for me they refer to hypothetical cases, they are abstract images, speculation,theories.They are not concrete and real people.They can only be real and known in Heaven.So since they do not exist in the present times on earth they cannot be exceptions to EENS.The liberal theologians made a mistake.Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice it.
So in the books on Vatican Council II written by Ferrara and Mattei, Vatican Council II is projected as a rupture with Tradition since the writers mixed up what is invisible and as being visible.They then projected these unknowable people as being known examples of salvation outside the Church.
When they wrote their books, Vatican Council II could also have been projected as a continuity with Tradition and the dogma EENS.
So the Magisterium of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), made a mistake at that time.Since the CDF Prefect assumed that unknown people were known it was an objective mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven saved, were visible on earth, it was a factual mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven were also present on earth at the same time,he violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The same mistake unknowingly, was made by Christopher Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Attila Guimares, Michael Davies and Diterich von Hildebrand in their books and articles.
In their books they were saying that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.This was true.Since a false premise is used.The educated Catholic recognizes the non traditional conclusion.
Even Pope John Paul II was aware of the rupture with Tradition.However what was not known to also Fr.John Hardon, Fr. William Most, Monsgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and other good apologists, was that the actual false premise was visible for us BOD,BOB and I.I and it caused the rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, past ecclesiology etc).
Now that Ferrara and Mattei know, there must be an apology or correction from them.Soon there will be the summer conferences of the traditionalists where the same error will be repeated,like in former years, even after being informed.-Lionel Andrades
So in the books on Vatican Council II written by Ferrara and Mattei, Vatican Council II is projected as a rupture with Tradition since the writers mixed up what is invisible and as being visible.They then projected these unknowable people as being known examples of salvation outside the Church.
When they wrote their books, Vatican Council II could also have been projected as a continuity with Tradition and the dogma EENS.
So the Magisterium of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), made a mistake at that time.Since the CDF Prefect assumed that unknown people were known it was an objective mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven saved, were visible on earth, it was a factual mistake.Since he assumed that people in Heaven were also present on earth at the same time,he violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The same mistake unknowingly, was made by Christopher Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Attila Guimares, Michael Davies and Diterich von Hildebrand in their books and articles.
In their books they were saying that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.This was true.Since a false premise is used.The educated Catholic recognizes the non traditional conclusion.
Even Pope John Paul II was aware of the rupture with Tradition.However what was not known to also Fr.John Hardon, Fr. William Most, Monsgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and other good apologists, was that the actual false premise was visible for us BOD,BOB and I.I and it caused the rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, past ecclesiology etc).
Now that Ferrara and Mattei know, there must be an apology or correction from them.Soon there will be the summer conferences of the traditionalists where the same error will be repeated,like in former years, even after being informed.-Lionel Andrades
APRIL 12, 2018
Like the liberals Roberto dei Mattei uses an irrational premise to interpret the baptism of desire etc. So there is a new version of EENS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/like-tbe-liberals-roberto-dei-mattei.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei is politically correct like the two popes and in heresy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-is-politically.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but with the traditionalist interpretation of the Council by using Cushingite instead of Feeneyite theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-so-fault-does-not-lie-with.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : Vatican needs to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvrehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-vatican-needs-to-apologise-for.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : Books of Archbishop Lefebvre are obsolete now : so are the writings on Vatican Council II by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-books-of-archbishop-lefebvre-are.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : No contradiction or correction from Roberto dei Matteihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-no-contradiction-or-correction.html
DECEMBER 12, 2017
Neither is Roberto dei Mattei nor Maike Hickson willing to affirm the old ecclesiology of the Church with Feeneyite EENS and with such a big doctrinal and theological divide among us they are talking about the pope being in heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/neither-is-roberto-dei-mattei-not-maike.htmlAPRIL 12, 2018
Repost : The traditionalists in general have made an error.They have made a major error in theology and doctrinehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-traditionalists-in-general-have.html
APRIL 12, 2018
Repost : I am waiting for Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, Robero dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara to affirm Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of EENS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-i-am-waiting-for-cardinal-burke.html
APRIL 11, 2018
Roberto dei Mattei still cannot state that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Neither will he affirm the dogma EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/roberto-dei-mattei-still-cannot-state.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : Father Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari were also unknowingly following the new theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-father-nicholas-gruner-and-john.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-frnicholas-gruner-and-john.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and Fr.Nicholas Gruner express the new theology on Vatican Council II : it has a factual error, an objective mistake http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-christopher-ferrara-john-vennari.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : If we eliminate the 'known exceptions' theory, Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Kasper would have to admit that there is no change in doctrine : Vatican Council II supports the 16th century Jesuit missionaries
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-if-we-eliminate-known-exceptions.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : There is only one cause for the confusion. It has to be identified and corrected and then we have the old theology at Mass.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-there-is-only-one-cause-for.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost :John Vennari assumes being saved in invincble ignorance is an exception to the dogma
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-john-vennari-assumes-being-saved.html
APRIL 4, 2018
Repost : There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio : more mistakes by John Vennari
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/repost-there-being-exceptions-is.html
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2018
It was commonly known that the present Magisterium was in schism with the past Magisterium but every one would would it brush it off and say Vatican Council II was responsible for this.They were really referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise and this was not known to Catholics.
Now we know. We've stumbled on to the missing link.If this was a ruse we have found it out. If it was a simple mistake we can now correct it.The truth is out finally.
It was only by interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational premise that the liberals and Masons could create a schism with the past Magisterium of the Church.
Now we simply avoid the false premise(invisible people are physically visible in the present times) and the interpretation of Vatican Council II is no more schismatic.
Catholics no more have to support heresy.
CMRI, MHFM and other Catholics who went into sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II and the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)- being interpreted by them with the false premise - can now re-interpret the Council.
The SSPX can re-interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors while conservative and liberal Catholic heretics, will no more be able to cite any reference in the text of the Council to support themselves.They depended on the false premise.
The old concept of liberals and traditionalists has now taken a jolt and could crumble or change.Since even Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei interpret Vatican Council II schismatically.They use the false premise and then reject the conclusion and blame it all on Vatican Council II.I don't interpret the Council like them.So I support Vatican Council II( premise-free).
But Remnant News, Catholic Herald and other Catholic media use the invisible people are visible premise.So do the apologists at Catholic Answers, EWTN and the National Catholic Register. It's the same with cardinals Kasper,Koch and Marx.
Conservative Catholics too are supporting heresy( new version of Vatican Council II,EENS, Catechisms etc) and schism( a rupture with the Magisterium of the 16th century with Vatican Council II).
Note: It is important when reading Vatican Council II not to assume the text as for and against EENS. Since this is a sign that the false premise is being used unknowingly.-Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 24, 2018
SSPX begin negotiations with Abp. Guido Pozzo : ask if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the Lionel Andrades model.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/sspx-begin-negotiations-with-abp-guido.html
FEBRUARY 24, 2018
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j is in schism error needs to be recanted : Catholics have to affirm heresy and schism of the present Magisterium in the name of Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise to elicit a non traditional and heretical conclusion which is a break with the past Magisterium of the Church.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-is-in-schism.html
FEBRUARY 24, 2018
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF),Vatican has no objections if all Catholic religious communities affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise : information exclusively on Lionel's Blog
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/the-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html
SUNDAY, JULY 28, 2019
Roberto de Mattei will still not tell Diane Montagne of LifeSitesNews that there are no personally known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance outside the Catholic Church and so he affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) according to the 16th century Magisterium and misionaries. The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not literal exceptions in 2019 to the strict interpretation of EENS.
Nor does he announce that he and Christopher Ferrara,Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari and others made a mistake when they interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being non hypothetical. They were wrongly assumed to be personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.So now there are exceptions to EENS. Invisible people are exceptions.
He does not announce that he and Christopher Ferrara wrote books on Vatican Council II with this objective mistake. They interpreted the Council with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism; with the irrational premise instead of without it.
Rorate Caeili does not announce that Mattei and Ferrara's concept of Vatican Council II was based on a mistake. So it is false. It was the interpretation of Pope Paul VI .
The same mistake was made by Michael Davies, Atila Sinke Guimares and in recent times by Paolo Pascualucci.
The traditionalists today attend the Latin Mass and proclaim the New Ecclesiology and New Theology in public.It is the same as at Mass in the vernacular. It is a rupture with the Tridentine Mass of the 16th century.In the 16th century, BOD, BOB and I.I referred to hypothetical cases and not explicit exceptions to traditional EENS. At the Latin Mass today BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. So they refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. Otherwise how could they be exceptions? This was the reasoning of the liberal theologians and the traditionalists over the last 50 years.
_______________________________
JULY 17, 2019
Mattei and Ferrara read Vatican Council II superficially and wrote books misleading Catholics ( Graphics)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/07/mattei-and-ferrara-read-vatican-council.html
MAY 5, 2018
DECEMBER 14, 2017
No contradiction or correction from Roberto dei Mattei
___________________________________________________________________
Professor de Mattei, who directs the magazine Radici Cristiane and the Corrispondenza Romana News Agency, has published countless articles and nearly 20 books. His latest has been recently translated into English –
Vatican II was a “historical turning point,” he told me. Some Council Fathers saw a more optimistic period in bloom. Others, more conservative, did not. 1
-Lionel Andrades
RELEVANT LABELS/ TAGS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS BLOG
Nicene Creed(10)
Nicene Creed was changed with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistake(5)
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite)(2)
Cushingis(2)
Cushingism(104)
Cushingismo(5)
Cushingite(3)
Cushingites(1)
Cushngism(2)
____________________________________
JANUARY 27, 2018
What is Feeneyism? (Graphics)
JANUARY 27, 2018
What is Cushingism ?(Graphics)
Graphics (44)
________________________________________________
Posts
