Saturday, September 7, 2024
Veneration of the Holy Cross at Medugorje 06/09/2024
Sample petition
SEPTEMBER 7, 2024
I, Lionel Andrades interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all other catechisms, with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’, with the rational premise (invisible people are invisible). I avoid the present common irrational premise (invisible people are visible, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible person in 2024) of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican.
During the alleged schism-trial recently, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DCF) Vatican, chose the irrational premise. This is unethical. For the Vatican ‘the red is an exception for the blue’. LG 8,14,15,16 etc in Vatican Council II, refer to physically visible people. They are examples of known people in the present times (1965-2024) saved outside the Church, for the DCF. So there has to be a rupture with the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for the DCF and the bishops conferences.Exceptions are produced out of nowhere.This is unethical. It is official.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the DCF, interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally.The error comes from the objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The 1949 LOHO confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being physically visible examples of savation outside the Church and so they became practical exceptions for Feneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949)
The result has to be heresy.LOHO rejects the dogma EENS with alleged known cases of salvation outside the Church in 1949. This is irrational. If anyone is saved it is known only to God. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.So we cannot posit the baptism of desire as an exception for the past teaching on the Church having exclusive salvation.
The DCF conclusion is schismatic. It is a liberal break with the Magisterium before 1949.The cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II with the red hypothetical passages being practical exceptions for the blue orthodox passages. I avoid this mistake. There are many other Catholics who avoid this error, like me.
I interpret Vatican Council II rationally and not like Pope Francis, the DCF and the Doctrine Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
I appeal to Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernandez,the bishops’ conferences and the College of Cardinals to re-interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms of the Catholic Church rationally, only. There is no other honest choice.They would then be ethical.The Church would return to Tradition. ‘Rome would come back to the Faith’. The DCF would, in public, support the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Vatican Council II would emerge traditional.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1442) is now in harmony with Vatican Council II (rational) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rational), for me.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II ( irrational).Archbishop Vigano today is not obliged to accept Vatican Council II, irrational, as does the DCF.
I repeat : I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally.The passages underscored in red ( which refer to hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) are not practical exceptions for the orthodox passages marked in blue. They are not exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.We have the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition, with all the catechism.
I repeat : I affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church,only when they are interpreted rationally. I interpret them rationally in harmony with Tradition, as do the religious community the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, NH, USA.
I call for the re-trial of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, with all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, and Catechisms) interpreted only rationally by the DCF (and also by Archbishop Vigano). During Vigano's schism-trial they were interpreted irrationally. So the DCF did not have a continuation with the pre-1949 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Canonically the cardinals and bishops of the DCF must affirm all the de fide teachings of the Catholic Church.This includes the Athanasius Creed ( rational), the Nicene Creed ( rational) and the Apostles Creed ( rational and not irrational).Non of these Creeds are contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. So Pope Francis and the DCF can no more justify Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custode and Fiducia Supplicans, with Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally. - Lionel Andrades
Another John Henry Westen, Joseph Shaw and Roberto dei Mattei petition is needed
Another John Henry Westen, Joseph Shaw and Roberto dei Mattei petition is needed.
Why don’t they issue a pro-Vigano petition? The signatories must be clear. They only interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all
other catechisms, with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’, with the
rational premise (invisible people are invisible).They avoid the present common irrational premise (invisible people are visible, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible person in 2024). During the
alleged schism -trial recently, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the FaithDCF) Vatican
chose the irrational premise. This is unethical. For them ‘the red is an
exception for the blue’. Lumen Gentium 8,14,15,16 etc refer to physically visible people. They are examples
of salvation outside the Church in the present times. So there has to be a rupture
with the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Exceptions are produced out of nowhere.
Shaw, Westen and Mattei have signed so many petitions. It has to be shown concretely now how Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally.The result has to be heresy. Their conclusion is schismatic. It is a liberal break with the Magisterium before 1949.They interpret Vatican Council II with the red hypothetical passages being practical exceptions for the blue orthodox passages. I avoid this mistake. There are also now many other Catholics who avoid this error, like me.
The signatories must mention that they interpret Vatican Council II rationally
like me and not like Pope Francis, the DCF and the Doctrine Committee of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
The petition/statement must show the graphics/icons of the Catechism of
the Catholic Church.The signatories must affirm that they choose common sense. For them ‘the red is not an exception for
the blue’.
Then they must appeal to Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernandez,the bishops’
conferences and the College of Cardinals to re-interpret Vatican Council II and
the Catechisms of the Catholic Church rationally, only. There is no choice.They would be ethical.The Church would return to Tradition. ‘Rome would come back to the Faith’.
The DCF would in public support the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of
Errors of Pope Pius IX. Vatican Council II would emerge traditional. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1442) would be in harmony with Vatican Council II (rational) and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church (rational).Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II ( irrational).Archbishop Vigano today is not obliged to accept Vatican Council II, irrationally like the DCF.
The petition could state, ‘We the undersigned wish to state that we
interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church
rationally. The passages underscored in red refer to hypothetical cases of the
baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. They are not practical
exceptions for the orthodox passages marked in blue. Neither are they exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
We affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We interpret them rationally in harmony with Tradition, as do the religious community the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, NH, USA.'
This is one option. The petition could also simply present the graphics ( for which permission has been granted by me) and mention that the signatories accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted only rationally, with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’. Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not contradict the orthodox passages support the ecclesiocentric salvation and the need for the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
With this basic format, another option is to call for the re-trial of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, with all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, and Catechisms) interpreted only rationally. During the trial they were interpreted irrationally by all concerned. So the DCF did not have a continuation with the pre-1949 ,Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.- Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
