The Patron Saints for All 50 States

A not-recent Did You Know? feature by Billy Ryan at UCatholic so no peeking or research before posting answers.

Answers along the lines of "Mary", "The Blessed Virgin", "Our Lady", are not specific enough.

Overall, Colorado is probably the hardest. Careful with Idaho.

Issue was taken in comments at uCatholic about some of its answers.


Anonymous said...

There are limitations placed on the answer. Generally in the Church there are limitations placed on answers, often there are no answers forthcoming.
This blog is becoming conspicous for the lack of answers for the past comments.
Without answers there cannot be a Restoration in the Church.The traditionalists and conservatives allow the liberals and Pope Francis to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise, and create a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus( with no exceptions), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius Ix ( with no exceptions) and the Athanasius Creed (with no exceptions).Pope Francis rejects all these three documents since there are exceptions for him.
The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) say that they affirm all these three documents. For some of them in the SSPX there are exceptions and for others there are no exceptions.
For Bishop Bernard Fellay Vatican Council II and EENS had exceptions but for SSPX General Chapter in their Statement 2012 they accepted EENS with no exceptions, contradicting Bishop Fellay.
The present two popes , the SSPX, FSSP and the Franciscans of the Immaculate( both groups) support a New Theology based upon a fake premise, which creates a rupture with Tradition.It projects fake exceptions.So under these conditions how can there be a Restoration in the Church? No answers are coming from them.They do not even admit that they are wrong.
Pope Francis and the ecclesiastics get away with bad theology which is supported by Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara and Joseph Shaw and Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schnedier.It is the staple die of Cardinal Kasper an Koch who are answerable to no one, since no one is asking specific questions or answering them.

Anonymous said...

Why should traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II like Roberto dei Mattei, Peter Kwasniewski, Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, SSPX and FSSP and Terrance Berris ? There will be no answer.
I mean there is a rational version available. Why choose their irrational version like that of Pope Francis and the liberals. ?
If Pope Francis and the traditionalists use a fake premise to interpret the Council, obviously the conclusion will be non traditional.
Traditionalists have to switch to the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II and not the one by Cardinal Raymond Burke and the late Mons. Brunero Gherardino. Put aside Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari.They were all interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and then saying that the Council was not dogmatic. This was appreciated by the ecclesiastics, liberals and Masons.It was a secret for them.Cardinal Ratzinger kept it hidden.
Of course the Council is dogmatic.It is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions) with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, etc interpreted rationally and not irrationally.
The FSSP priests must stay in France but announce that they accept Vatican Council II but interpret it rationally.So the Council supports traditional dogma and doctrine. If Pope Francis and the bishops say that the Council must be interpreted irrationally to create a rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) this is unethical and not Catholic.Even by secular standards this is dishonest.
Pope Francis must not thrust down our throat an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II approved by the popes since Paul VI and also by by Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ottaviani.Catholics are not obligated to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as examples of personally known, seen in the flesh non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water.There are no such cases in 2021.There were none known to us human beings in 1965 too.
In my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, the priests cannot say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible, theoretical and hypothetical cases only in 2021.Pope Francis expects them to lie.
When Lumen Gentium 8 etc are projected as exceptions to the Athanasius Creed ( with no exceptions) it is implied that LG 8 etc refer to physically visible, seen in the flesh persons and not hypothetical and non objective cases in 2021.Otherwise how could they be practical exceptions for EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed? The ecclesiastics need exceptions for EENS and the rest of Tradition.They can only get exceptions by projecting what is invisible as being visible.
Traditionis Custode was based upon this deception.Everyone is expected to affirm a non dogmatic, irrational, heretical and schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II approved by Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops.
Why should the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II like the Lefebvrists and not like me ? If they interpret Vatican Council II like I do, they can still follow the same Tradition but without rejecting the Council.
But with a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II it would mean having to reject the New Ecumenism, New Theology, New Ecclesiology etc. Since with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally there is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church. The New Ecumenism, for example, assumes that Unitatis Redintigratio 3 refers to known,visible, seen in the flesh non Christians saved outside the Church and so are exceptions for EENS.
With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, UR 3 is seen as only a hypothetical case in 1965-2021. So hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

This is a big one. No one wants to answer this too.

Eric Sammons makes the common mistake of interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.He confuses what is invisible as being visible and then projects exceptions for the ‘absolutist’ concept of Catholic Salvation. So his Salvation Spectrum would not exist if he did not use the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I), Vatican Council II and the 16th century exclusivist interpretation of EENS.It is only with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II,i.e by confusing what is subejective as being objective, that for him,emerges the theological schools Exclusivist, Inclusivist, Pluralist, and Universalist.In his report The Ongoing Debate on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Crisis Magazine May 25,2021) and book Deadly Indifference he emerges as a politically correct with the Left, liberal on this issue, similar to Ralph Martin, who used the same false premise to remain vague.
With the false premise in the interpretation of LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II he creates practical exceptions for EENS. The present two popes, the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbisbishop of Boston did the same. They created alleged practical exceptions for EENS.So with there being salvation outside the Church, even though no one has seen or met such a case on earth in the present times, there emerges theologically, the universalist position of Bishop Robert Barron and the exclusivist and inclusivist theological position of the SSPX, FSSP and sedevacantists CMRI.
On the other hand we have the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA holding the absolutist position on EENS but contradicting it with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II with the same false premise, Eric Sammons uses.So even though they support EENS they negate it with Vatican Council II, similar to the popes since Paul VI and those whom they call the ‘Vatican Council II sect’.
So on a video on Traditionis Custode, Sammons could only say that the real issue is doctrine and in particular Vatican Council II. He could not elaborate. Since he was limited by the false premise of the LOHO, which is official and accepted by the popes.
Pope Francis is restricting the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass to only those who interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so reject the absolutist interpretation of EENS.The issue is the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Since even if Vatican Council II was accepted and interpreted with the rational premise, it would be unacceptable for the Left. Since there would be a harmony between Vatican Council II and the absolutist position on EENS of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Anonymous said...

For Pope Francis and Pope Benedict the LOHO supersedes the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils, with none of them mentioning any exceptions.This is political.
Eric Sammons also says that ‘the Church has condemned’ the theological position of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who said that the baptism of water was needed for all for salvation ( to avoid Hell).But a Letter from cardinals and bishops in Rome and Boston, approved by Pope Pius XII cannot contradict the dogma EENS supported by the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q,27Q) and that to with a faulty premise.Dogmas do not change.
It is unethical and dishonest when the LOHO is used to reject Magisterial documents which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Since there are no practical exceptions to EENS etc known on earth.But the popes since Pius XII accepted LOHO which is heretical and irrational and has brought in a new theology in the Church, which says outside the Church there is salvation ( with the false premise) and which was accepted at Vatican Council II. LOHO says not every one needs to be a Catholic for salvation and the Athanasius Creed still says all need the Catholic faith for salvation. LOHO says invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincinble ignorance are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so all do not not need to be a formal member of the Church for salvation. The Syllabus of Errors and the old Catechisms say all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
For Eric Sammons, the LOHO is Magisterial, and so he states that ‘the Church’ has ‘condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney’ without mentioning that the excommunication was lifted with the Boston priest only having to recite the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation. He was given a Catholic funeral with a bishop present there.The Boston heresy really referred to only the Archbishop of Boston and the popes and cardinals and Jesuits of that time who projected invisible and unknown cases at that time as being objective exceptions to a de fide teaching of the Church.
So today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise he cannot be magisterial. This is an important point which Sammons cannot discuss. It is when Crisis magazine choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premish, that there can be a Magisterial interpretation of the Council which would not contradict the past Magisterium of the Church. -Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

No one answers in Colorado or Idaho when I talk about VC2.Since all of them are using the false premise. It is an epidemic in the Catholic Church today.

Vatican Council II was a political Left document which has a built -in weakness, an error, which permits us to interpret it in harmony with there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.We simply do not confuse what is hypothetical as not being hypothetical.The Council Fathers and Pope Paul VI wrongly interpreted LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc as being objective, visible in the flesh cases in the present times (1949-1965).Now we look at LG 8,LG 16 etc as being only theoretical and speculative always.They exist only in our mind.They cannot be anything else for us on earth.So we do not project them as practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc.
The Council is dogmatic.It supports Feeneyite EENS.There is no development of doctrine when the false premise( invisible cases are visible in 2021) is avoided.The Council supports the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.This is a big setback for Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.We are no more limited by half a century of error.We have found the missing link.We now know how to consistently,systematically and regularly create the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition, when reading VC2.-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia’s interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, Fr.Leonard Feeney etc is political.The false premise is used to interpret all Magisterial documents.Not a single Catholic or Catholic organisation has issued a correction.
Similarly Nicole Winfield in her report on Traditionis Custode for the Associated Press,interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a fake rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).No one has issued an official or unofficial clarification or correction.
Eric Sammons in his report of May 25,2021 for Crisis magazine,used the Wikipedia citation on Fr. Leonard Feeney.In general, the new Editor in Chief interprets Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and EENS with the irrational premise which would put him in conflict with 16th century EENS , the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and traditional ecclesiocenterism.To reject the Athanasius Creed is serious stuff.
Even centre right political parties have not corrected this leftist doctrine on the Internet.We are Catholics and not politicians.-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis thinks the false premise is the answer.


When Pope Francis and the Confederation of Latin American and Caribbean Religious(CLAR) commonly interpret Vatican Council with a false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion it supports the Leftist ideology. It is ideological.
So presently there is inculturation in the Latin American and Caribbean countries,like also those in Asia and elsewhere, but with the ideological interpretation of Vatican Council II.
If there was Holy Mass in the vernacular in these countries and if they interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise there would be harmony with the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.This would be opposed by the Left and Pope Francis would consider Vatican Council II ideological.
He would want an inculturazation with the leftist ideology.

If the FSSP and SSPX go back to Tradition while putting aside Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise,this produces the wrong ideology for Pope Francis. It is not that of the ADL and those who are working for a universal religion with the Anti Christ present .This is the political ideology all bishops will have to support, to approve Mass in any rite, vernacular or Latin.
If the FSSP and the SSPX begin to offer Mass in the vernacular and interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, they could show Pope Francis that the political ideology, either way, does not depend upon the liturgy.The new doctrines are created when Vatican Council II is intentionally interpreted without the rational premise by the present two popes, the cardinals and the bishops.

By Courtney Mares
CNA, Aug 14, 2021 Pope Francis warned against misuse of the liturgy that places an emphasis on ideology in a video message sent Friday to a Latin American conference on religious life.
“Let us not forget that a faith that is not inculturated is not authentic. For this reason, I invite you to participate in the process that will provide the true sense of a culture that exists in the soul of the people,” Pope Francis said in the video sent on Aug. 13.
“When this inculturation does not take place, Christian life, and even more so the consecrated life, ends up with the oddest and most ridiculous Gnostic tendencies. We’ve seen this, for example, in the misuse of the liturgy [where] what is important is ideology rather than the reality of the people. This is not the Gospel.”
The pope’s video message was featured at a virtual conference organized by the Confederation of Latin American and Caribbean Religious (CLAR).
Pope Francis: Nostalgia is the 'siren song of religious life'

Anonymous said...

There is no answer from Peter Kwasniewski

Peter Kwasniewski writes another article/letter to a Catholic seminarian praising the Latin Mass and Catholic Tradition without the need to accept Vatican Council II. The seminarian will be in schism.He would be correct to reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally with a false premise.But he can accept the Council interpreted with the rational premise.So he does not have to be in schism and neither reject the Council or Tradition.
Kwasnieski himself does not want to interpret the Council with the rational premise.He wants to please the Left. Since he will not be in schism,with the rational premise, he would have to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.And he does not want to affirm EENS and neither would has he recommened it to any seminarian.
He would have to affirm the Syllablus of Errors with no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. He does not recommend this to any one.
He would have to affirm the Athanasius Creed with no known exceptions of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in 2021 since his talks and writings may be restricted by the Left and the Vatican.It is a career issue. So he does not recommend that the seminarian affirm the Council interpreted rationally.
So he does not tell the seminarian to affirm Tradition and also these three documents interpreted with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.He says Catholic Tradition ended on the eve of Vatican Council II for him and he wants it like this for all seminarians too.
For him the only thing important is the Latin Mass even while denying de fide Church teachings which are not politically correct.- Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

The Badger Catholic organisation has no answer for this.


Young Catholics who have the true faith from their parents, or who have been homeschooled, will not be attracted to a religious community which does not interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise and so does not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no known exceptions), the Athanasius Creed ( with no exceptions), the Great Commission ( with no known exceptions in 2021), the Catechisms of Pope Pius X,24Q,27Q ( with invincble ignorance mentioned in that Catechism not being an exception) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1.CCC 846-outside the Church no salvation which cites Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism for salvation) and LG 16( invincible ignorance) and LG 14( baptism of desire) not being practical exceptions for AG 7).2.CCC 1257.The Necessity of Baptism. All needing the baptism of water for eternal beatitude with ‘though God is not limited to the Sacraments’ being theoretical only and so not a practical exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.)
For vocations it is important that Vatican Council II be accepted and interpreted rationally.Then there is no break with Tradition.
Religious formaters could also speak about the Four Last Things ( Death, Judgement, Hell, and Heaven) and the Four Marks of the Church ( one,holy,Catholic and Apostolic ).
Now with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally formaters cannot present the Catholic Church as one,holy, Catholic and Apostolic.Since there is a rupture with the past.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict’s irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II is not Magisterial.There is the hermenutic of rupture with Tradition. This badly influences vocations.With Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, they say that the Catholic Church is ‘a priveleged way of salvation’, one of many other ways,found in other religions.
However without the false premise, the popes would be saying, all need faith and baptism for salvation(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II) and there are no practical exceptions to AG 7 in LG 8,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc.The Council is dogmatic and affirms traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Athanasius Creed etc.This is what young religious vocations need to know, Vatican Council II which is not a break with Catholic Tradition.-.-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

All the books on Vatican Council II throughout the world are written with a false premise.In general a false premise was used.The result is a false inference and non traditional conclusion. A rational premise should have been used. Then the inference would be rational and the conclusion would be traditional.The traditionalists (SSPX,FSSP) have also used the fake premise,like the liberals.
New books are needed.They must have the hermeneutic of continuity.A continuity is needed with the past Magisterium.A continuity is needed with extra ecclesiam nulla salus( with no known practical exceptions in 2021).Vatican Council II (rational) is in harmony with ,the Athanasius Creed.It says all need the Catholic faith for salvation ( with no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II).
Now we can re-read the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q, 27Q.Being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not practical exceptions in the present times(1965-2021).We can go out and proclaim the Good News knowing that all need to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church for salvation( to avoid Hell) and there are no known exceptions in other religions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,1257 has to be re-interpreted rationally.It then supports the absolutist concept of Catholic salvation.
The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Benedict and Pope Francis is irrational .It is not Magisterial.They need to re-interpret the Council, and other Magisterial documents rationally.Then there will be unity with the past Magisterium. Traditionis Custode, and other encylicals and Apostolic Letters of Pope Francis, interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise. It is the same with Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. They are irrational, heretical and schismatic on the Council.Catholics are not obliged to follow Pope Francis on Vatican Council II.
Pope Franics confuses hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.They are not hypothetical for him. They are objective cases for him. They are objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.They are known people saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water .So they become practical exceptions to EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.If they were not visible they could not be exceptions for him.
But there are no such cases in our reality on earth. We cannot meet someone saved with the baptism of desire(LG 14) or invincible ignorance(LG 16) on earth.They are always invisible for us human beings. If any one was saved as such it could only be known to God. The norm for salvation is ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7).It is not invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire or LG 8,GS 22 etc.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and traditional and supports the norm for salvation.It is not just a pastoral Council. –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 )

Anonymous said...

May be someone will comment if I place the above report here in Italian.


Tutti i libri sul Concilio Vaticano II nel mondo sono scritti con una premessa falsa. In generale è stata usata una premessa falsa. Il risultato è una falsa inferenza e una conclusione non tradizionale. Si sarebbe dovuto usare una premessa razionale. Quindi l'inferenza sarebbe razionale e la conclusione sarebbe tradizionale. Anche i tradizionalisti (SSPX, FSSP) hanno usato la premessa falsa, come i liberali.
Servono libri nuovi. Devono avere l'ermeneutica della continuità. Occorre continuità con il Magistero passato. Occorre continuità con extra ecclesiam nulla salus (senza eccezioni pratiche note nel 2021). Concilio Vaticano II (razionale) è in armonia con, il Credo di Atanasio. Dice che tutti hanno bisogno della fede cattolica per la salvezza (senza eccezioni note menzionate nel Concilio Vaticano II).
Ora possiamo rileggere il Catechismo di Papa Pio X, 24Q, 27Q. L'essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e il battesimo di desiderio non sono eccezioni pratiche nei tempi attuali (1965-2021). Possiamo uscire e annunciare la Buona Novella sapendo che tutti hanno bisogno di accettare Gesù nella Chiesa cattolica per la salvezza (per evitare l'inferno) e non ci sono eccezioni conosciute in altre religioni. Il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica 846.1257 deve essere reinterpretato razionalmente. Supporta poi il concetto assolutista di salvezza cattolica.
L'interpretazione del Concilio Vaticano II da parte di papa Benedetto e papa Francesco è irrazionale. Non è magisteriale. Devono reinterpretare razionalmente il Concilio e altri documenti magisteriali. Poi ci sarà l'unità con il magistero passato. Traditionis Custode, e altre encicliche e lettere apostoliche di papa Francesco, interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II con la falsa premessa. È lo stesso con Papa Paolo VI e Papa Giovanni Paolo II. Sono irrazionali, eretici e scismatici sul Concilio. I cattolici non sono obbligati a seguire Papa Francesco sul Concilio Vaticano II.
Papa Francesco confonde casi ipotetici di LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 ecc. nel Concilio Vaticano II. Non sono ipotetici per lui. Sono casi oggettivi per lui. Sono esempi oggettivi di salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa Cattolica. Sono noti persone salvate senza la fede cattolica e il battesimo dell'acqua. Quindi diventano eccezioni pratiche a EENS, Sillabo degli Errori, Credo Atanasio, Athanasius Creed ecc. Se non fossero visibili non potrebbero essere eccezioni per lui.
Ma non ci sono casi simili nella nostra realtà sulla terra. Non possiamo incontrare sulla terra qualcuno salvato con il battesimo del desiderio (LG 14) o dell'ignoranza invincibile (LG 16). Sono sempre invisibili per noi esseri umani. Se qualcuno fosse stato salvato come tale, poteva essere conosciuto solo da Dio. La norma per la salvezza è “fede e battesimo” (AG 7). Non è l'ignoranza invincibile, il battesimo di desiderio o LG 8,GS 22 ecc.
Il Concilio Vaticano II è dogmatico e tradizionale e sostiene la norma per la salvezza. Non è solo un Concilio pastorale. –Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

...and French ?


Tous les livres sur le Concile Vatican II à travers le monde sont écrits avec une fausse prémisse. En général, une fausse prémisse a été utilisée. Le résultat est une fausse inférence et une conclusion non traditionnelle. Une prémisse rationnelle aurait dû être utilisée. Alors l'inférence serait rationnelle et la conclusion serait traditionnelle. Les traditionalistes (SSPX, FSSP) ont également utilisé la fausse prémisse, comme les libéraux.
De nouveaux livres sont nécessaires. Ils doivent avoir l'herméneutique de la continuité. Une continuité est nécessaire avec le Magistère passé. Une continuité est nécessaire avec extra ecclesiam nulla salus (sans exceptions pratiques connues en 2021). Le Concile Vatican II (rationnel) est en harmonie avec le Credo d'Athanase. Il dit que tous ont besoin de la foi catholique pour le salut (sans aucune exceptions connue mentionnée dans le Concile Vatican II).
Maintenant, nous pouvons relire le Catéchisme du Pape Pie X, 24Q, 27Q. Être sauvé dans l'ignorance invincible et le baptême du désir ne sont pas des exceptions pratiques dans les temps présents (1965-2021). Nous pouvons sortir et annoncer la Bonne Nouvelle sachant que tous doivent accepter Jésus dans l'Église catholique pour le salut (pour éviter l'enfer) et qu'il n'y a pas d'exceptions connues dans les autres religions. Le Catéchisme de l'Église catholique 846,1257 doit être réinterprété rationnellement. Il soutient alors le concept absolutiste du salut catholique.
L'interprétation du Concile Vatican II par le Pape Benoît et le Pape François est irrationnelle. Ce n'est pas du Magistère. Ils doivent réinterpréter le Concile et les autres documents du Magistère de manière rationnelle. Traditionis Custode, et d'autres encyliques et lettres apostoliques du pape François, interprètent le Concile Vatican II avec la fausse prémisse. C'est la même chose avec le pape Paul VI et le pape Jean-Paul II. Ils sont irrationnels, hérétiques et schismatiques au Concile. Les catholiques ne sont pas obligés de suivre le Pape François au Concile Vatican II.
Le pape François confond les cas hypothétiques de LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc dans le Concile Vatican II. Ils ne sont pas hypothétiques pour lui. Ce sont des cas objectifs pour lui. Ce sont des exemples objectifs de salut en dehors de l'Église catholique. Ce sont des personnes connues sauvées sans la foi catholique et le baptême d'eau. Ainsi, ils deviennent des exceptions pratiques à EENS, Syllabus des Erreurs du pape Pie IX, Credo d'Athanase etc, exceptions pour lui.
Mais il n'y a pas de tels cas dans notre réalité sur terre. Nous ne pouvons pas rencontrer quelqu'un de sauvé avec le baptême du désir (LG 14) ou l'ignorance invincible (LG 16) sur terre. Ils sont toujours invisibles pour nous, êtres humains. Si quelqu'un était sauvé en tant que tel, cela ne pouvait être connu que de Dieu. La norme pour le salut est « la foi et le baptême » (AG 7). Ce n'est pas l'ignorance invincible, le baptême de désir ou LG 8,GS 22 etc.
Le Concile Vatican II est dogmatique et traditionnel et soutient la norme pour le salut. Ce n'est pas seulement un Concile pastoral. –Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

Comment/Answer awaited from Terrence Berris

All Catholics are free to interpret Vatican Council II rationally like me instead of irrationally like the present two popes, the cardinals and bishops.They simply have to look at LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being ‘null sets’, deadwood and flotsam, empties.They have to be seen as only theoretical and speculative cases in 2021.They exist only in our mind.This is what they always were- hypothetical only.This changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
It is imporant to be aware of the invisible-visible distinction.Most Catholics are already making the invisible-visible distinction when they interpret Vatican Council II.They assume that LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.So they are projected as exceptions for EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.It is only when they start thinking about it they realize that these are physically invisible cases in real life.So they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS and Tradition.There really is no rupture with Tradition.
Since for there to be an exception, an exception must exist.I give the example of an apple in a box of oranges.The apple is an exception not only because it is different but because it exists in that box.If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception.In the same way a catechumen, who desires the baptism of water and dies before receiving it and is saved is always a hypothetical case.So it is not an exception for Feeneyite EENS.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

Bishop Robert Barron would be acceptable for all ?


At the Placuit Deo press conference (2018) Cardinal Ladaria was critical of neo Gnosticism and Pelagianism heresy.Now we know that he was referring to Catholic orthodoxy.Those who affirm Catholic orthodoxy would be gnostic.It is similar to the political hate of the political Left.At the conference when he was asked to give specific examples of heresy in the present times, he would not do so.
So mortal sins of faith will officially be excommunicated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).It will be enforced as new Catholic doctrine.The CDF will work for Satan instead of God.
The Church has gone into reverse on faith and morals.
The CDF’s critical statement on homosexual unions, was orthodoxy,It could be gnosticism in future, after Cardinal Ladaria retires.

In the 16th century gnosticism referred to heresy whch rejected Catholic orthodoxy. Now it is the opposite.
Since 1965 we have a political version of Vatican Council It' conclusion would be gnostic for the 16th century Magisterium and missionaries of that time.
In future when Vatican Council II is interpreted without the fake premise, inference and non traditional conclusion, it will support Tradition. With the rational premise it will not oppose Tradition like today. So then Vatican Council II will be considered heretical and gnostic.In future the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) could be labelled a gnostic organisation and legally not Catholic.They could be excommunicated.
Public signs of ‘the true Church’ will be prohibited.Bishop Robert Barron’s Word on Fire and the National Catholic Reporter, etc interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise.They will be permitted.-Lionel Andrades