July 31, 2021 There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston who have mentioned the New Evangelisation.
In the their recent interview Sammons cited the Bible to show that Jesus and the Catholic Church, membership in the Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation.
For example, on the Road to Damascus , Jesus says, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me ?” Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus identified with the Church, the Catholic Church.This is the Church which has given us the Bible, from which Sammon was quoting.
In Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) it is written that all need faith and baptism for salvation. The word All is there.With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, being hypothetical and invisible in the present times(2021) cannot be practical exceptions to AG 7 or outside the Church there is no salvation(CCC 846).There are not practical exceptions to the word 'all'.
The baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), being only speculative and not formally known examples of salvations. They never were practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits of his time.
So this is a Vatican Council II with 1 ) LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc invisible and hypothetical only ( as I see it) and then 2) there is the common interpretation with LG 8, LG 14 , UR 3 etc seen as physically visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and baptism.
Sammons and Weston have to show that when popes and cardinals choose the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II it cannot be Magisterial. The Holy Spirit will not call something invisible as being visible and then create a New Theology based upon this error in observation. An empirical error of observation.
Yet the New Evangelisation and New Ecumenism is based upon this error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So there is a Vatican Council II in harmony with outside the Church there is no salvation and there is a Vatican Council II which is a rupture with Tradition in general and in partcular the salvation-dogma.
In Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis was interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc being physically visible and personally known cases in 1965-2021.This is a major mistake.This is irrational.It is deceptive. If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.The norm for salvation in the Catholic Church has always been faith and the baptism of water.The norm is not LG 8,LG 16 etc.The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not the norm. CONTINUED
THE SSPX IS NOT PROCLAIMING THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING IN ALL POLITICS IN THE USA, ITALY ETC AND NEITHER INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE INSTEAD OF THE IRRATIONAL PREMISE : SO THEIR EVANGELISATION IS LIMITED.
The web blog Rorate Caeili knows that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise even though this was the mistake of the Council Fathers in 1965. It was also the error in reasoning, of Pope Pius XII and the cardinals in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued. Many years back a reader of Rorate Caeili described the blog as ‘spineless’ in an e-mail to me.Since the owner of the web-blog had posted some comments of mine showing how the International Theological Comission, had made an error in two documents, when it used the false premise to interpet the LOHO and Vatican Council II. The rabbi at the Angelicum had phoned up Rorate Caeili, the editor announced it on the blog. He was concerned and immediately removed the comments. It must be noted that at the Angelicum University they interpret Unitatis Redintigratio 3 as referring to known Christians in the present times, saved outside the Church. So UR is projected as a practical exception to the dogma EENS and the past ecumenism of return.
It is not said that Pope Paul VI could have interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise, if he wanted to, and the Council would not be rupture with Tradition. The old propaganda of Don Pietro Leone is gurgitated on Rorate Caeili. Leone has spent most of of his life interpreting Vatican Council II with the error and now cannot change to a rational option, which could be costly for him and Rorate Caeli. So they will put the blame on Vatican Council II while not while not choosing to affirm the Faith on the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the salvation-dogma.
There is not a single report on Rorate Caeili which states that there are two interpretations of the Council and that Traditionis Custode was issued with the irrational interpretation of the Council, like that of Don Pietro Leone.So was the Abu Dhabi statement and Amoris Laeitia. Cardinal Hummers cited Vatican Council II for the innovation at the Amazon Synod and criticized the SSPX for not accepting the Council ( interpreted with the false premise to produce a false rupture with Catholic Tradition).
The Latin Mass ( not Traditional Latin Mass) will be permitted in Britain since the Latin Mass Socieities like the liberals will interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone ( by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then projecting practical exceptions to Tradition) and not Lionel Andrades( who affirms the orthodox passages in the Council-text and does not project passages which refer to hypothetical cases as being practical exceptions to Tradition). This was the political approach of Fr. Davide Pagliarani in his recent statement on Traditionis Custode he prudently did not say that the SSPX affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and politics in Italy, USA etc. He also did not say that they support Vatican Council II with the rational premise, and so the Council would not be a rupture with the traditional proclamation of the Social Reign and the exclusivista interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He could not say it. Since Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake when he used the false premise to interpret the Councils and so also the Creeds and Catechisms, The Profession of Faith of Fr. Pagliarani and the cardinals and bishops at the Novus Ordo Mass, would be diferent from mine.-Lionel Andrades (From the blog eucharistandmission )
Terrance Berris, a retired Catholic lawyer in Wisconsin, USA depends upon a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so create a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.He does not deny this on this blog The Badger Catholic. He is supported by Fr. John Kartje, the former Rector of Mundalein Seminary, Chicago.So in their evangelisation they would reject Traditional Mission doctrine.
He is supported by Fr. John Kartje, the former Rector of Mundalein Seminary, Chicago and a correspondent of the Badger Catholic.
Berris uses a false premise to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II. For him these are physically invisible cases in 1965-2021 which he projects as physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so they become for him, practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not a rupture with Tradition (EENS etc) but for him they are.So to support his irrational use of the false premise to make the Council a break with Tradition, he cites the SSPX U.S website Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine .
Mundalein seminary, Terrance Berris and the SSPX are using a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS are are not apologizing.They will not identify the problem to correct it.They are going ahead with the deception. Terrance Berris and I are in the same Catholic Church but our Profession of Faith would be different.Since our premises are different the conclusions too would have to be different. With the false premise, he the SSPX and Fr. Kartje are modernists. I am not.
Berris is implying that non Catholics who are dead and are now in Heaven and also visible on earth to be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.How can people be in two places at the same time?
How can he see people in Heaven and also on earth for them to be exceptions for the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church.
Yet this is also the reasoning of other Catholic lawyers e.g John Salza, Chris Ferrara, Christine Niles. When Ferrara wrote his book EWTN a Network Gone Wrong he did not know that he and the EWTN Management and apologists, were interpreting Vatican Council II and EENS, with a fake premise which was officially approved by the popes .
When Christine Niles on the M’ced Up program for Church Militant TV did a program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus she made the same error when she quoted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known exceptions to the dogma EENS according to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence which she quoted on that program.Neither did she or Charles Coulombe, whom she interviewed on that program say that Vatican Council II and EENS could be interpreted with the rational premise and so there would be no rupture with Catholic Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).-Lionel Andrades
ARCHBISHOP CARLO VIGANO IS NOT EVANGELIZING BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED RATIONALLY. Archbishop Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement on Vatican Council II. He interpreted the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and Associated Press and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version. Archbishop Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement on Vatican Council II. He interpreted the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and Associated Press and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version.There were no correctioins or clarifications from Terrance Berris and other Catholic lawyers in the USA.
If the editors of his book, Brian McCall and Maike Hickson, used the TWO COLUMN approach to view Vatican Council II, they would cease to be Lefebvrists like Vigano. If the interpreted Vatican Council II with the RATIONAL PREMISE, RATIONAL INFERENCE AND TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION, they would emerge Feeneyites on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed( Feeneyite-with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Feeneyite-with no known exceptions). But they have to follow Archbishop Carlo Vigano's approach to Vatican Council II which is also that of Cardinal Claudio Hummes when he offers Holy Mass in Brazil, in the language of the Amazonians, and he will interpret the Council, with the fake premise to reject the First Commandment,’thou shalt have no other God beside me’.
This will also be the approach of Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi at the Sacred Heart Major seminary, Detroit, USA and Scott Hahn and Alan Schreck at the Theology Department of the University of Steubenville, USA.They will be at Mass in Engish without the past exclusivist ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is interpreted with the fake premise, creating a New Theology, which says outside the Church there is salvation, even among those who do not know or do not believe in Jesus Christ. Scott Hahn, Alan Schreck, Robert Fastiggi and Ralph Martin have decided not to discuss this issue since they are obliged to teach Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake reasoning. It’s a political interpretation of the Council which creates schism with the past Magisterium and the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Hummes, like Vigano, is not telling the Brazilian Catholics, that there is true worship in only the Catholic Church when Vatican Council II is interpeted rationally.
At the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with the fake premise and concluded that there is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He criticized the SSPX for beleiving that outside the Church there is no salvation, since, he said, that they do not accept Vatican Council II. He was referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise. The SSPX also interprets the Council with the fake premise, like Cardinal Hummes, but then rejects the non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre did the same. So the FSSP, at Dijon, France, made of the same cloth will not affirm Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and tell Bishop Minnerath, that he is wrong in his writings to support a ‘theology of religious pluralism’ . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II. There are no personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2021.Practically also, we cannot meet any such person.So how can the bishop propose a theology of religions when there is no known salvation outside the Church to contradit Feeneyite EENS ? The theology of religions which is the subject of some of his books was condemned by Pope John Paul II ( Notification, CDF, Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj, 2001). -Lionel Andrades
Poor Evangelisation : The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Times of Israel and other mainline leftist newspapers have issued incorrect informatioin on Vatican Council II in their reports on Traditionis Custode : The Thomas More Law Society could ask Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj to issue a correction. The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Times of Israel and other mainline leftist newspapers have issued incorrect informatioin on Vatican Council II in their reports on Traditionis Custode and there is no correction from the Catholic lawyer Terrance Berris in Wisconsin, USA who has a blog The Badger Catholic. The reports have interpreted Vatican Council II with a fake and not rational premise and so a calculated false rupture is created with Cathlic Tradition. Without the false premise, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not objective exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic. The Creed does not mention any exceptions. But Nicole Winfield at the Associated Press interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being known people saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and the baptism of water, in 1965-2021. So they become exceptions for the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX is made obsolete. Lawyers Terrance Berris, Christine Niles, John Salza, Chris Ferrara and others are not affirming Vatican Council II with the rational premise( invisible cases are invisible only. LG 8 refers to a physically invisible case in 2021) and are not correcting the error in the newspapers and Internet( Wikipedia etc). The Thomas More Law Society could ask Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj to issue a correction.At the Plaquet Deo Press Conference he interpreted Lumen Gentium 8 as referring to a physically visible person saved outside the Catholic Church and so a practical exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church,traditional ecclesiocentrism. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-associated-press-los-angeles-times.html
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.It would be the same for Terrence Berres ?
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode. How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance),for example ? For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious. How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he is interpreting Vatican Council II and it is different from the rational way I interpret the Council.I consider the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise Magisterial, since it is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral. 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
France needs to accept the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II then at every Holy Mass in the French language, the only rational choice will be the Tridentine exclusivist ecclesiology of the past.We will be back to the old Evangelisation doctrine.
‘Rome will have come back to the Faith’, as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wanted.
We go back to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the French Vendees. Since there will be no exception to the past ecclesiology of the Church found in Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc will be hypothetical and no more confused as being practical and known examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2021.
We go back with one simple action, i.e choosing the rational premise, to the understanding of Church of the times of the St. Joan of Arc. This will be at every Holy Mass and not only those in Latin.We evangelise with the traditional doctrine.-Lionel Andrades
Eighty two years back Pope Pius XII allowed doctrine and dogma to be changed in the Catholic Church in exchange for peace and security. He did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney and allowed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to say that unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known exceptions to the centuries old strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). EENS was based upon the Bible teachings in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.
So the New Theology was outside the Church there is salvation. This meant the teachings on ecumenism, other religions, Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and exclusive salvation would have to change.The Zionists could be present in 1960-1965 at Vatican Council II.The Church had surrendered. Then non Catholics were allowed to be professors at the pontifical universities in Rome, beginning with the John Lateran University. In 1949, the time of surrender, the popes Benedict, John Paul II and Francis were young.They became cardinals in a Church, which was separated from the State because of a change in doctrine in 1949. Now if that doctrine is restored to its original, with a rational premise, we have an ecumenism of return, 16th century EENS, the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislatioin and the non separation of Church and State based on the there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So the priority would be that all be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. It means we do not not reject Vatican Council II but re interpret it in harmony with the pre-1949 Catholic Churh. We undo what was lost 82 years back.The Council is no more an ally of the liberals. -Lionel Andrades http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/eighty-two-years-back-pope-pius-xii.html
IS POPE FRANCIS RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II WHAT DOES TERRENCE BERRIS THINKS ? John Henry Weston had a good program recently on the subject outside the Church there is no salvation,when he interviewed Eric Sammons.He can now work for creating unity in the Catholic Church. The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with exceptions and the St. Benedict Centers(SBC) accept EENS with no exceptions. Both groups are Catholic. For the SSPX, the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are exceptions for EENS and for the SBC they are not exceptions. If you discuss this issue with either of them they will go into their specific theology, defending the founders of their communities. How can we create unity betweem these two groups ?One of them has to be wrong on doctrine.
The SSPX will cite the present two popes who project the BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS. The SBC will cite the past popes, many of them, who did not project BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS. Now after Vatican Council II(1965) and the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston (1949) we know that there are no physically visible cases of the BOD and I.I in our reality.We cannot see or meet any one saved outside the Church with BOD and I.I. So BOD and I.I could not have been practical exceptions to EENS in 1949 or 1965.Someone made a mistake. It was only be confusing what was speculative (BOD and I.I) as being non speculative and objective, that practical exceptions ( visible cases of being saved with BOD and I.I) were created for EENS.In this way the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church was made obsolete.Ths is the point that John Henry Weston, Editor in Chief at Life Site News, must bring out in questions and discussions with the SSPX and SBC.
It will have a direct bearing on how he personally will interpret Vatican Council II.Will LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II be exceptions for EENS or will they not be exceptions, for him ? Is Pope Francis rational or irrational on Vatican Council II ? What does he think? - Lionel Andrades http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/john-henry-weston-had-good-program.html
AUGUST 6, 2021 Is Pope Francis rational or irrational on Vatican Council II for you ? IS POPE FRANCIS RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR YOU ? -Lionel Andrades https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/is-pope-francis-rational-or-irrational.html
07.08.2021 POPE FRANCIS IS IN SCHISM ? - VATICAN COUNCIL II IS BEING INTERPRETED WITH A FAKE PREMISE TO CREATE A FAKE RUPTURE WITH TRADITION: TRADITIONIS CUSTODE ALSO IMPOSES THE ERROR : THE ERROR NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE. Pope Francis was in schism at the National Cathechectical Center, Italy(Jan 30,2021) when he said that Vatican Council II had to be accepted as he interpreted it i.e with a fake premise.He said that his interpretation of Vatican Council II( with the fake premise) which produces a rupture with the past Magisterium- was Magisterial. He reiterated that the interpretation of the Council with the false premise, which produces a rupture with the Athansius Creed( all need Catholic faith for salvation),changes the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed( we believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins which exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church hence there are exceptions for EENS), and a re-interpretation of the Catechisms – was the Magisterium. This is schism since with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II there is a break with ‘the true Church’ represented by the Creeds, Catechisms, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and other Magisterial documents intepreted rationally. To reject the Athanasius Creed and change the understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed, is first class heresy, in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II(Ad Tuendum Fidem). It is schism in the Church. This is a scandal.Pope Francis needs to go for Confession and recant. He could announce that he interprets Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and so there is no schism with the past Magisterium, the popes and saints on doctrine and dogma.In particular there is no break with the past ecclesiocenrtrism of the Catholic Church. In this way Pope Francis would return to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology without rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted with the rational premise.
Pope Francis says in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode : A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit. How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance),for example ? For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious. How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he interprets Vatican Council II and it is different from the rational way I interpret the Council.I consider the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise Magisterial, since it is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.
CONTINUED JOHN HENRY WESTON AND SBC AND SSPX John Henry Weston had a good program recently on the subject outside the Church there is no salvation .He can now work for creating unity in the Catholic Church but also answer if Pope Francis is in public schism. The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with exceptions and the St. Benedict Centers(SBC) accept EENS with no exceptions.Both groups are Catholic. For the SSPX, the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are exceptions for EENS and for the SBC they are not exceptions. If you discuss this issue with either of them they will go into their specific theology, defending the founders of their communities. How can we create unity betweem these two groups ? One of them has to be wrong on doctrine.Similarly Pope Francis or I am in error on this issue. The SSPX will cite the present two popes who project the BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS. The SBC will cite the past popes, many of them, who did not project BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS. Now after Vatican Council II(1965) and the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston (1949) we know that there are no physically visible cases of the BOD and I.I in our reality.We cannot see or meet any one saved outside the Church with BOD and I.I. So BOD and I.I could not have been practical exceptions to EENS in 1949 or 1965.Someone made a mistake. It was only be confusing what was speculative (BOD and I.I) as being non speculative and objective, that practical exceptions ( visible cases of being saved with BOD and I.I) were created for EENS.In this way the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church was made obsolete.Ths is the point that John Henry Weston, Editor in Chief at Life Site News, must bring out in questions and discussions with the SSPX and SBC. It will have a direct bearing on how he personally will interprets Vatican Council II.Will LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II be exceptions for EENS or will they not be exceptions, for him ? Is Pope Francis rational or irrational on Vatican Council II ? Is there schism or no schism ? What does he think? -Lionel Andrades
12 comments:
AUGUST Intention for evangelization - The Church
July 31, 2021
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational and this could be the subject of an intervew or article by Eric Sammons and John Henry Weston who have mentioned the New Evangelisation.
In the their recent interview Sammons cited the Bible to show that Jesus and the Catholic Church, membership in the Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation.
For example, on the Road to Damascus , Jesus says, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me ?” Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus identified with the Church, the Catholic Church.This is the Church which has given us the Bible, from which Sammon was quoting.
In Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) it is written that all need faith and baptism for salvation. The word All is there.With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, being hypothetical and invisible in the present times(2021) cannot be practical exceptions to AG 7 or outside the Church there is no salvation(CCC 846).There are not practical exceptions to the word 'all'.
The baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), being only speculative and not formally known examples of salvations. They never were practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits of his time.
So this is a Vatican Council II with 1 ) LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc invisible and hypothetical only ( as I see it) and then 2) there is the common interpretation with LG 8, LG 14 , UR 3 etc seen as physically visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and baptism.
Sammons and Weston have to show that when popes and cardinals choose the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II it cannot be Magisterial. The Holy Spirit will not call something invisible as being visible and then create a New Theology based upon this error in observation. An empirical error of observation.
Yet the New Evangelisation and New Ecumenism is based upon this error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So there is a Vatican Council II in harmony with outside the Church there is no salvation and there is a Vatican Council II which is a rupture with Tradition in general and in partcular the salvation-dogma.
In Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis was interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , UR 3 etc being physically visible and personally known cases in 1965-2021.This is a major mistake.This is irrational.It is deceptive. If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.The norm for salvation in the Catholic Church has always been faith and the baptism of water.The norm is not LG 8,LG 16 etc.The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not the norm.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/there-are-two-interpretations-of_31.html
THE SSPX IS NOT PROCLAIMING THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING IN ALL POLITICS IN THE USA, ITALY ETC AND NEITHER INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE INSTEAD OF THE IRRATIONAL PREMISE : SO THEIR EVANGELISATION IS LIMITED.
The web blog Rorate Caeili knows that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise even though this was the mistake of the Council Fathers in 1965. It was also the error in reasoning, of Pope Pius XII and the cardinals in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued.
Many years back a reader of Rorate Caeili described the blog as ‘spineless’ in an e-mail to me.Since the owner of the web-blog had posted some comments of mine showing how the International Theological Comission, had made an error in two documents, when it used the false premise to interpet the LOHO and Vatican Council II. The rabbi at the Angelicum had phoned up Rorate Caeili, the editor announced it on the blog. He was concerned and immediately removed the comments.
It must be noted that at the Angelicum University they interpret Unitatis Redintigratio 3 as referring to known Christians in the present times, saved outside the Church. So UR is projected as a practical exception to the dogma EENS and the past ecumenism of return.
It is not said that Pope Paul VI could have interpreted Vatican Council II without the false premise, if he wanted to, and the Council would not be rupture with Tradition.
The old propaganda of Don Pietro Leone is gurgitated on Rorate Caeili. Leone has spent most of of his life interpreting Vatican Council II with the error and now cannot change to a rational option, which could be costly for him and Rorate Caeli.
So they will put the blame on Vatican Council II while not while not choosing to affirm the Faith on the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the salvation-dogma.
There is not a single report on Rorate Caeili which states that there are two interpretations of the Council and that Traditionis Custode was issued with the irrational interpretation of the Council, like that of Don Pietro Leone.So was the Abu Dhabi statement and Amoris Laeitia. Cardinal Hummers cited Vatican Council II for the innovation at the Amazon Synod and criticized the SSPX for not accepting the Council ( interpreted with the false premise to produce a false rupture with Catholic Tradition).
The Latin Mass ( not Traditional Latin Mass) will be permitted in Britain since the Latin Mass Socieities like the liberals will interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone ( by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then projecting practical exceptions to Tradition) and not Lionel Andrades( who affirms the orthodox passages in the Council-text and does not project passages which refer to hypothetical cases as being practical exceptions to Tradition).
This was the political approach of Fr. Davide Pagliarani in his recent statement on Traditionis Custode he prudently did not say that the SSPX affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and politics in Italy, USA etc. He also did not say that they support Vatican Council II with the rational premise, and so the Council would not be a rupture with the traditional proclamation of the Social Reign and the exclusivista interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He could not say it. Since Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake when he used the false premise to interpret the Councils and so also the Creeds and Catechisms, The Profession of Faith of Fr. Pagliarani and the cardinals and bishops at the Novus Ordo Mass, would be diferent from mine.-Lionel Andrades
(From the blog eucharistandmission )
AUGUST Intention for evangelization - The Church
Terrance Berris, a retired Catholic lawyer in Wisconsin, USA depends upon a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so create a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.He does not deny this on this blog The Badger Catholic. He is supported by Fr. John Kartje, the former Rector of Mundalein Seminary, Chicago.So in their evangelisation they would reject Traditional Mission doctrine.
He is supported by Fr. John Kartje, the former Rector of Mundalein Seminary, Chicago and a correspondent of the Badger Catholic.
Berris uses a false premise to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II. For him these are physically invisible cases in 1965-2021 which he projects as physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so they become for him, practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not a rupture with Tradition (EENS etc) but for him they are.So to support his irrational use of the false premise to make the Council a break with Tradition, he cites the SSPX U.S website Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine .
Mundalein seminary, Terrance Berris and the SSPX are using a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS are are not apologizing.They will not identify the problem to correct it.They are going ahead with the deception.
Terrance Berris and I are in the same Catholic Church but our Profession of Faith would be different.Since our premises are different the conclusions too would have to be different. With the false premise, he the SSPX and Fr. Kartje are modernists. I am not.
Berris is implying that non Catholics who are dead and are now in Heaven and also visible on earth to be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.How can people be in two places at the same time?
How can he see people in Heaven and also on earth for them to be exceptions for the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church.
Yet this is also the reasoning of other Catholic lawyers e.g John Salza, Chris Ferrara, Christine Niles. When Ferrara wrote his book EWTN a Network Gone Wrong he did not know that he and the EWTN Management and apologists, were interpreting Vatican Council II and EENS, with a fake premise which was officially approved by the popes .
When Christine Niles on the M’ced Up program for Church Militant TV did a program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus she made the same error when she quoted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known exceptions to the dogma EENS according to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence which she quoted on that program.Neither did she or Charles Coulombe, whom she interviewed on that program say that Vatican Council II and EENS could be interpreted with the rational premise and so there would be no rupture with Catholic Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).-Lionel Andrades
ARCHBISHOP CARLO VIGANO IS NOT EVANGELIZING BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED RATIONALLY.
Archbishop Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement on Vatican Council II. He interpreted the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and Associated Press and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version.
Archbishop Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement on Vatican Council II. He interpreted the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and Associated Press and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version.There were no correctioins or clarifications from Terrance Berris and other Catholic lawyers in the USA.
If the editors of his book, Brian McCall and Maike Hickson, used the TWO COLUMN approach to view Vatican Council II, they would cease to be Lefebvrists like Vigano.
If the interpreted Vatican Council II with the RATIONAL PREMISE, RATIONAL INFERENCE AND TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION, they would emerge Feeneyites on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed( Feeneyite-with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Feeneyite-with no known exceptions).
But they have to follow Archbishop Carlo Vigano's approach to Vatican Council II which is also that of Cardinal Claudio Hummes when he offers Holy Mass in Brazil, in the language of the Amazonians, and he will interpret the Council, with the fake premise to reject the First Commandment,’thou shalt have no other God beside me’.
This will also be the approach of Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi at the Sacred Heart Major seminary, Detroit, USA and Scott Hahn and Alan Schreck at the Theology Department of the University of Steubenville, USA.They will be at Mass in Engish without the past exclusivist ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is interpreted with the fake premise, creating a New Theology, which says outside the Church there is salvation, even among those who do not know or do not believe in Jesus Christ.
Scott Hahn, Alan Schreck, Robert Fastiggi and Ralph Martin have decided not to discuss this issue since they are obliged to teach Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake reasoning.
It’s a political interpretation of the Council which creates schism with the past Magisterium and the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Hummes, like Vigano, is not telling the Brazilian Catholics, that there is true worship in only the Catholic Church when Vatican Council II is interpeted rationally.
At the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with the fake premise and concluded that there is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He criticized the SSPX for beleiving that outside the Church there is no salvation, since, he said, that they do not accept Vatican Council II. He was referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise.
The SSPX also interprets the Council with the fake premise, like Cardinal Hummes, but then rejects the non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre did the same.
So the FSSP, at Dijon, France, made of the same cloth will not affirm Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and tell Bishop Minnerath, that he is wrong in his writings to support a ‘theology of religious pluralism’ . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II. There are no personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2021.Practically also, we cannot meet any such person.So how can the bishop propose a theology of religions when there is no known salvation outside the Church to contradit Feeneyite EENS ? The theology of religions which is the subject of some of his books was condemned by Pope John Paul II ( Notification, CDF, Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj, 2001).
-Lionel Andrades
Poor Evangelisation : The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Times of Israel and other mainline leftist newspapers have issued incorrect informatioin on Vatican Council II in their reports on Traditionis Custode : The Thomas More Law Society could ask Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj to issue a correction.
The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Times of Israel and other mainline leftist newspapers have issued incorrect informatioin on Vatican Council II in their reports on Traditionis Custode and there is no correction from the Catholic lawyer Terrance Berris in Wisconsin, USA who has a blog The Badger Catholic.
The reports have interpreted Vatican Council II with a fake and not rational premise and so a calculated false rupture is created with Cathlic Tradition.
Without the false premise, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not objective exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic. The Creed does not mention any exceptions.
But Nicole Winfield at the Associated Press interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being known people saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and the baptism of water, in 1965-2021.
So they become exceptions for the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX is made obsolete.
Lawyers Terrance Berris, Christine Niles, John Salza, Chris Ferrara and others are not affirming Vatican Council II with the rational premise( invisible cases are invisible only. LG 8 refers to a physically invisible case in 2021) and are not correcting the error in the newspapers and Internet( Wikipedia etc).
The Thomas More Law Society could ask Cardinal Luiz
Ladaria sj to issue a correction.At the Plaquet Deo Press Conference he interpreted Lumen Gentium 8 as referring to a physically visible person saved outside the Catholic Church and so a practical exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church,traditional ecclesiocentrism.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-associated-press-los-angeles-times.html
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.It would be the same for Terrence Berres ?
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.
How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance),for example ?
For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious.
How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he is interpreting Vatican Council II and it is different from the rational way I interpret the Council.I consider the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise Magisterial, since it is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
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
France needs to accept the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II then at every Holy Mass in the French language, the only rational choice will be the Tridentine exclusivist ecclesiology of the past.We will be back to the old Evangelisation doctrine.
‘Rome will have come back to the Faith’, as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wanted.
We go back to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the French Vendees. Since there will be no exception to the past ecclesiology of the Church found in Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc will be hypothetical and no more confused as being practical and known examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2021.
We go back with one simple action, i.e choosing the rational premise, to the understanding of Church of the times of the St. Joan of Arc. This will be at every Holy Mass and not only those in Latin.We evangelise with the traditional doctrine.-Lionel Andrades
EVANGELISATION CHANGED 82 YEARS BACK
Eighty two years back Pope Pius XII allowed doctrine and dogma to be changed in the Catholic Church in exchange for peace and security. He did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney and allowed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to say that unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known exceptions to the centuries old strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). EENS was based upon the Bible teachings in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.
So the New Theology was outside the Church there is salvation.
This meant the teachings on ecumenism, other religions, Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and exclusive salvation would have to change.The Zionists could be present in 1960-1965 at Vatican Council II.The Church had surrendered.
Then non Catholics were allowed to be professors at the pontifical universities in Rome, beginning with the John Lateran University.
In 1949, the time of surrender, the popes Benedict, John Paul II and Francis were young.They became cardinals in a Church, which was separated from the State because of a change in doctrine in 1949.
Now if that doctrine is restored to its original, with a rational premise, we have an ecumenism of return, 16th century EENS, the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislatioin and the non separation of Church and State based on the there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So the priority would be that all be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
It means we do not not reject Vatican Council II but re interpret it in harmony with the pre-1949 Catholic Churh. We undo what was lost 82 years back.The Council is no more an ally of the liberals. -Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/eighty-two-years-back-pope-pius-xii.html
IS POPE FRANCIS RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II WHAT DOES TERRENCE BERRIS THINKS ?
John Henry Weston had a good program recently on the subject outside the Church there is no salvation,when he interviewed Eric Sammons.He can now work for creating unity in the Catholic Church.
The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with exceptions and the St. Benedict Centers(SBC) accept EENS with no exceptions.
Both groups are Catholic.
For the SSPX, the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are exceptions for EENS and for the SBC they are not exceptions.
If you discuss this issue with either of them they will go into their specific theology, defending the founders of their communities.
How can we create unity betweem these two groups ?One of them has to be wrong on doctrine.
The SSPX will cite the present two popes who project the BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS. The SBC will cite the past popes, many of them, who did not project BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS.
Now after Vatican Council II(1965) and the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston (1949) we know that there are no physically visible cases of the BOD and I.I in our reality.We cannot see or meet any one saved outside the Church with BOD and I.I. So BOD and I.I could not have been practical exceptions to EENS in 1949 or 1965.Someone made a mistake.
It was only be confusing what was speculative (BOD and I.I) as being non speculative and objective, that practical exceptions ( visible cases of being saved with BOD and I.I) were created for EENS.In this way the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church was made obsolete.Ths is the point that John Henry Weston, Editor in Chief at Life Site News, must bring out in questions and discussions with the SSPX and SBC.
It will have a direct bearing on how he personally will interpret Vatican Council II.Will LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II be exceptions for EENS or will they not be exceptions, for him ?
Is Pope Francis rational or irrational on Vatican Council II ? What does he think? - Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/john-henry-weston-had-good-program.html
AUGUST 6, 2021
Is Pope Francis rational or irrational on Vatican Council II for you ?
IS POPE FRANCIS RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR YOU ? -Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/is-pope-francis-rational-or-irrational.html
07.08.2021
POPE FRANCIS IS IN SCHISM ? - VATICAN COUNCIL II IS BEING INTERPRETED WITH A FAKE PREMISE TO CREATE A FAKE RUPTURE WITH TRADITION: TRADITIONIS CUSTODE ALSO IMPOSES THE ERROR : THE ERROR NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE.
Pope Francis was in schism at the National Cathechectical Center, Italy(Jan 30,2021) when he said that Vatican Council II had to be accepted as he interpreted it i.e with a fake premise.He said that his interpretation of Vatican Council II( with the fake premise) which produces a rupture with the past Magisterium- was Magisterial.
He reiterated that the interpretation of the Council with the false premise, which produces a rupture with the Athansius Creed( all need Catholic faith for salvation),changes the meaning of the Nicene and Apostles Creed( we believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins which exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church hence there are exceptions for EENS), and a re-interpretation of the Catechisms – was the Magisterium.
This is schism since with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II there is a break with ‘the true Church’ represented by the Creeds, Catechisms, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and other Magisterial documents intepreted rationally.
To reject the Athanasius Creed and change the understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed, is first class heresy, in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II(Ad Tuendum Fidem). It is schism in the Church.
This is a scandal.Pope Francis needs to go for Confession and recant.
He could announce that he interprets Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and so there is no schism with the past Magisterium, the popes and saints on doctrine and dogma.In particular there is no break with the past ecclesiocenrtrism of the Catholic Church.
In this way Pope Francis would return to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology without rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted with the rational premise.
Pope Francis says in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode :
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit.
How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance),for example ?
For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious.
How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he interprets Vatican Council II and it is different from the rational way I interpret the Council.I consider the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise Magisterial, since it is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
JOHN HENRY WESTON AND SBC AND SSPX
John Henry Weston had a good program recently on the subject outside the Church there is no salvation .He can now work for creating unity in the Catholic Church but also answer if Pope Francis is in public schism.
The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with exceptions and the St. Benedict Centers(SBC) accept EENS with no exceptions.Both groups are Catholic.
For the SSPX, the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are exceptions for EENS and for the SBC they are not exceptions.
If you discuss this issue with either of them they will go into their specific theology, defending the founders of their communities.
How can we create unity betweem these two groups ? One of them has to be wrong on doctrine.Similarly Pope Francis or I am in error on this issue.
The SSPX will cite the present two popes who project the BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS. The SBC will cite the past popes, many of them, who did not project BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS.
Now after Vatican Council II(1965) and the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston (1949) we know that there are no physically visible cases of the BOD and I.I in our reality.We cannot see or meet any one saved outside the Church with BOD and I.I. So BOD and I.I could not have been practical exceptions to EENS in 1949 or 1965.Someone made a mistake.
It was only be confusing what was speculative (BOD and I.I) as being non speculative and objective, that practical exceptions ( visible cases of being saved with BOD and I.I) were created for EENS.In this way the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church was made obsolete.Ths is the point that John Henry Weston, Editor in Chief at Life Site News, must bring out in questions and discussions with the SSPX and SBC.
It will have a direct bearing on how he personally will interprets Vatican Council II.Will LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II be exceptions for EENS or will they not be exceptions, for him ?
Is Pope Francis rational or irrational on Vatican Council II ? Is there schism or no schism ? What does he think? -Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment