I proudly serve at the altar and hope to again next weekend if our Pastor gives me the chance. Problem is, he’s mad with me and my behavior. When Father is mad at me, I try to pretend I’m praying, but that makes him even angrier. Usually, I upset him by getting too snarky with my fellow servers. I called one J’ish (not sure what that even means to be honest), and told another that he’s not Catholic. Another I told to go hide in a hole. I’ve called them all idiots, to my shame. Father took me aside to talk with me, and asked what I do in my free time. “Truth is,” I said to him, “I pretty much only browser the Eponymous Flower from Sunday to Sunday.” I told him about how much I look up to Tancred, and try to be just like him. That’s when Father said, “Tancred sounds like a nasty cunt. Forget all about him and stop visiting that site.” Then, we offered a Mass for Tancred. I came back to see if things have changed, but it’s all the same. I’m sorry, Tancred, but I can’t keep visiting your site if I’m going to be holy like my Pastor. Pray for me that I stay away from here.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE A POPE WHO DOES NOT INTERPRET THE ATHANASIUS CREED, THE DOGMA EENS AND VAITICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY' Patrick Coffin, How can you have a pope who interprets the Athanasius Creed irrationally and does not deny it? How can you have a pope who rejects the Athanasius Creed ? How can you have a pope who interprets Vatican Council II irrationally to produce a break and rejection of the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? How can you have a pope who does not accept and interpret Vatican Council II 0and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally? How can you have a pope who rejects the four marks of the Church ( Nicene Creed) by interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally in public ? The cardinals and bishops do not deny it. I interpret all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils and Catechisms) rationally only. I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible, unknown as being known , subjective as being objective and then produced a nontraditional conclusion which is non Magisterial, non apostolic and a rupture with the pre-1949 Magisterium. People now know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional, which the pope must accept. This is obligatory also for the cardinals and bishops.- Lionel Andrades
Dear Patrick, Google has closed down my blog Eucharist and Mission ( blog owner Lionel Andrades) which said often that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one rational and the other irrational. For the Vigano-trial the irrational one was used. This is an injustice. With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, Cardinal Fernandez would have to affirm the Athanasius Creed which does not have any exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. LG 8,16 etc refer to invisible cases in 2025. There is presently 'an apostolic visitation' of the FSSP underway in Rome. How can it be called 'apostolic ' when the false interpretation ,with the objective error is being used by the visiting delegation with the approval of Pope Francis. The irrational interpretation produces liberalism and a break with the Apostles and Church Fathers on EENS, the Creeds , Catechisms etc. Should not Pope Francis in public affirm the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed with no visible exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ? Should he not interpret the Council rationally to be a pope? Once he does this then he will be magisterial and traditional and non schismatic. It would be the same for the College of Cardinals. In Christ Lionel
WE DO NOT HAVE UNITY ON THE NICENE CREED WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH After 1700 since the Council of Nicea, Pope Francis has appealed to all Christians for unity but we do not have unity on this Creed and other Creeds within the Catholic Church itself. The Nicene Creed as found on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website is as follows: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed CONTINUED
CONTINUED For me the Nicene Creed says ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.’ This refers to the baptism of water only which is seen and repeatable. It can be administered unlike the baptism of desire. So there is a reference to only one baptism and not three baptisms which exclude the baptism of water. For Pope Francis the interpretation is different. He accepts the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney(LOHO). This Letter confuses invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), defined by three Church Councils. He also interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, making the dogma EENS obsolete. In other words, there are visible cases of LG 8,16,UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, which are objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2025.So they are assumed to be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms which say outside the Church there is no salvation. So for Pope Francis and the College of Cardinals there is the baptism of desire without the baptism of water, there is being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water etc. Invisible cases, without the baptism of water, are assumed to be exceptions for the dogma EENS, for the popes, cardinals and bishops in general. The understanding of the Nicene Creed for them is ‘I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, which exclude the baptism of water.’ In this way they avoid the Feeneyite label.They are not considered Anti Semitic or fundamentalist. They have not returned to the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church which was exclusivist. So their premise is irrational (invisible people are visible in the present times). There inference is false ( invisible people are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has become obsolete), Their nontraditional, false and liberal conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition in general. The New Theology from the 1949 LOHO says outside the Church there is known salvation; visible cases in the present times. For me, after Vatican Council II, is interpreted rationally, the Church still maintains the old theology which says outside the Church there is no salvation. We still affirm the old exclusivist ecclesiology. But this is not the understanding of Pope Francis who interprets all the Creed, Councils and Catechisms irrationally to produce a liberal, nontraditional and schismatic conclusion which is definitely not magisterial. So we do not have unity on the Nicene Creed and neither on the Athanasius Creed and the Apostles Creed. At the opening of the academic year at the Pontifical Gregorian University Rome, at Mass in their chapel the Nicene Creed was read together by the faculty, students and technical staff as an Oath of Fidelity to the Church. It was said that this is our faith, this is what the Church believes. But before 1949 the Church believed that the baptism of desire referred to a physically invisible case in our reality. This is common sense. It is common knowledge. So the premise before and after 1949 is different and so the conclusion and theology is also different. So I believe in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and I am in union with the Apostles and Church Fathers. Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops are in a break with them. -Lionel Andrades
Patrick Coffin, You have to change your approach. You have to ask Pope Francis direct questions like: ‘Could you please affirm the Athanasius Creed? He cannot do so. We will need a miracle. Ask him to please affirm the Nicene Creed, interpreted rationally. He cannot do it. We will need a miracle. If he affirmed the Nicene and Athanasius Creed rationally he would be a Feeneyite for the political Left. Ask him to affirm Vatican Council II but interpret it only rationally. He cannot do this. For then he would be affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. Invisible cases of LG 8,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II would not be visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2025 . So they would not be objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed etc. Ask him to accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It must only be interpreted rationally of course. Only rationally! This is a given. He has a moral obligation to be honest. This will be difficult. He would have to say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 (saved in invincible ignorance) does not contradict CCC 845-846 (outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation). This is the opposite of what the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF Vatican) has been saying. So can there be a pope who does not affirm and interpret the Creeds rationally? This must be your approach. Put the onus on the pope. Do not let him cite Vatican Council II, irrational to justify his liberalism and dissent. When he changes the understanding of the Creeds presently, is this not first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II (Ad Tuendem Fidem)? So you don’t have to go into sedevacantism. Simply affirm Magisterial Documents rationally and then their conclusion will be traditional. Then ask Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops to do the same. -Lionel Andrades
IN THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE MUST REFER TO A HYPOTHETICAL AND INVISIBLE CASE IN 2025
Archbishop Viganò, Schism, and Francis—Marc Balestrieri https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKwtUw6UYxg
In the 1917 Code of Canon Law it has to be assumed that the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. It is always an invisible case for us human beings. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire. So Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston when he assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire were visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1442 etc) had practical exceptions and so had become obsolete. In the following links nowhere is the baptism of desire referred to as a literal and personally known case. Since the baptism of desire cannot be a literal case for us. We must not confuse what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible.
The Harmony and Consistency of the Teaching of the Catholic Church on Baptism of Desire by Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI https://immaculateconceptioncmri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Baptism-of-Desire-and-of-Blood-Booklet.pdf
The 1917 Code of Canon Law https://vaticancatholic.com/1917-code-of-canon-law/
Baptism of Desire and of Blood http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
This position arises from a rigorist view on the Church teaching of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or “outside the Church there is no salvation.” It holds that one must be a card-carrying member of the Catholic Church without exception in order to be saved. A baptism of desire would, of course, be contrary to this position. Not all Sedevacantists hold to this rigorist view like the gentleman I had been corresponding with. On baptism of desire, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (1260). https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-baptism-of-desire-heresy So in the Patrick Coffin discussion on heresy and schism with canon lawyer Marc Balestrieri they did not note that the Athanasius Creed has exceptions for Pope Francis (baptism of desire etc) but none for me. The Athanasius Creed, ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ is interpreted by them as ‘three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water’. For me it is only one baptism which is the baptism of water. The Apostles Creed refers to the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church, which today teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation- for me. For them the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church teaches that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation: there is salvation. So we do not have unity on the Creeds. I am in harmony with the pre 1949 Magisterium. They are not. To change the understanding of the Creeds is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.- Lionel Andrades
Could Marc Baliestri file a petition against the bishops of Frejuf Toulon, France, including Bishop Dominique Re, www.canonicalaid.org, pro bono pubblico, stating that they are not Catholic according to the 1917 and Revised Code of Canon Law, since they do not affirm the Athanasius Creed , the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Nicene Creed, which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted only rationally. So the recent visitation in the diocese was not apostolic, since they were interpreting the Creeds, the Apostolic Signatura and bishops in general, who do not do this. For the same reason, i.e. the irrational interpretation of Magisterial Documents ( Creeds etc), in the present ‘apostolic visitation’ of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) at the church Santissima Trinita dei Pelligrini, Rome, is not apostolic. It is doctrinally and theologically a rupture with the Church Fathers and the medieval popes. It is a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Church. According to Canon Law a bishop must be a Catholic and he must affirm the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms in their original form. The 1917 Code of Canon Law mentions the baptism of desire for example, but does not state that it is a physically visible case. Common sense before 1949 understood the baptism of desire as not being a literal case. So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error when it confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS in 1949. This objective mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II (LG 14 etc) and it has spread throughout the Church. It is assumed that there are alleged practical exceptions for the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed mentioned in Vatican Council II. This is the common irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. The bishops will not affirm the Athanasius Creed etc falsely claiming there are practical exceptions in Vatican Council II. This is a rupture with the 1949 Magisterium. We have now discovered that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, on rational and the other irrational. So how can a pope, cardinal and bishop be Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II , only irrationally, to produce a nontraditional, liberal, heretical and schismatic conclusion, which is manifest and public and can be verified. It is formal. Lionel Andrades Archbishop Viganò, Schism, and Francis—Marc Balestrieri https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKwtUw6UYxg
Dear Marc Balestrieri When Fr. Laire issued the Decree of Prohibitions against the St. Benedict Center he was unethical. Since if he interpreted Vatican Council II rationally (and not irrationally and unethically as at present) then he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS like the St. Benedict Centers in the diocese of Manchester and Worcester, USA. The Decree of Prohibitions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would apply to him. You could use what I write here in your defense in court. I am available to provide you with all the information you need. Also Sisters at the St. Benedict Center, NH are familiar with what I have been writing and agree with me. They could help you if you have any questions. This is an important issue and justice should also be done in the Archbishop Vigano case. Think: if Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez interpreted Vatican Council II like me, then he would be affirming the Athanasius Creed and Tradition of Archbishop Vigano. He would be in schism for Pope Francis, who interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally. In Christ Lionel Andrades
Dear Marc Balestrieri, With the Lionel Andrades Apologetics you could still tell Fr. Georges de Laire , Judicial Vicar, New Hampshire, USA and Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire that they are unethical, insincere, incoherent and vindictive. They are politically motivated on Catholic doctrine and not Catholic. I had mentioned this many times on my blog Eucharist and Mission which Google closed down last October and destroyed all the content. I have also been cancelled from Face book. On my Twitter account there my report with the photographs of Fr. De Laire and Damien Fisher. It probably still is there. My apologetics is based upon LG 8, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being only hypothetical. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center NH agree with me. Everyone agrees with me. Since it is common knowledge that we cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church in the present times. This is a given. But if Fr. Georges de Laire says that LG 8 etc refer to hypothetical cases only and so do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the three Church Councils, then he is saying that there are no exceptions for the dogma EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II. The Council also does not contradict the Athanasius Creed and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846).This is huge. It is a complete turnaround. He is then affirming EENS according to Brother Andre Marie MICM and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the pre-1949 Magisteruim of the Catholic Church. But in spite of being reminded Fr. Laire, Bishop Libasci and the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, do not do this. They know the implications. So they fake it. They do not respond. I have e-mailed the Curia at Manchester many times but no one has responded. They know the implications. They pretend that Vatican Council II has practical exceptions for the dogma EENS etc and so they do not affirm de fide teachings of the Church, which are required by Canon Law. On the other hand, Brother Andre Marie micm, for example, is ready to affirm all Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally. But the Diocese of Manchester and the Vatican cannot say the same. Since they are dishonest in public. This is official and formal. It is public heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II, since they change the understanding of the Creeds. They have to use the false premise (invisible people are visible), and false inference (visible cases of LG 8, 16 etc are objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so the dogma EENS has exceptions and has become obsolete). So their false conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. Then they are not required to affirm any more, the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS and the Nicene Creed interpreted rationally. So today Fr. Georges de Laire and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, will not affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally etc. Unethical! - Lionel Andrades
Medjugorje: The Beginning of the End? by Patrick Coffin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nQ_N5F9c5Q i have been posting these comments to Patrick Coffin and Marc Baliestieri and have received no response. They still want to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally in public ? There is no denial from them? Coffin is criticizing Medugorje as if he is faithful to Catholic Tradition ? He does not want to be Anti Semitic ? And so he continues to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally, like Donal Foley. The Vicar of Christ is also interpreting Magisterial Documents irrationally and so unethically. It is the same with the bishop of Mostar. -Lionel Andrades
Patrick Coffin SHOCKED Studying the Truth About Vatican II: Hermeneutic of Continuity or Rupture? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnJhavpjRU
Patrick Coffin does not know about the Lionel Andrades Apologetics. It is a breakthrough on Vatican Council II. It is a discovery. Something completely new. It is unbelievable. It was not known to the Jewish infiltration, Michael Davies or Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was not spoken about by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. It is still not known to Protestants. It is not known to the Tridentate Catholics today. It is simple. The bottom line is that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible cases in 1965-2025. It is as simple as this. Just affirm this and then seen the new, or rather, traditional conclusions. LG 16 for example is not an objective case in 2025. We cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance over the last five years. This is an insight which was not known to the Iota Unam of Romano Amerio. It was not known to Prof. Mattei. They are correct. Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition but only when LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to physically examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the three Church Councils which defined it and did not mention any exceptions. This insight was only there in the writing of Lionel Andrades and was expressed on his blog Eucharist and Mission. The blog has been closed down. There is no post and pre Conciliar Church which is different for Lionel. The ecclesiology is the same since Vatican Council II, with hypotherical cases of LG 8 etc, do having exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX , the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc. This is a big breakthrough. It means the only rational option which the College of Cardinals have in future for the interpretation of Vatican Council II, is a traditional one. Rome has come back to the Faith. - Lionel Andrades
12 comments:
I proudly serve at the altar and hope to again next weekend if our Pastor gives me the chance. Problem is, he’s mad with me and my behavior. When Father is mad at me, I try to pretend I’m praying, but that makes him even angrier. Usually, I upset him by getting too snarky with my fellow servers. I called one J’ish (not sure what that even means to be honest), and told another that he’s not Catholic. Another I told to go hide in a hole. I’ve called them all idiots, to my shame. Father took me aside to talk with me, and asked what I do in my free time. “Truth is,” I said to him, “I pretty much only browser the Eponymous Flower from Sunday to Sunday.” I told him about how much I look up to Tancred, and try to be just like him. That’s when Father said, “Tancred sounds like a nasty cunt. Forget all about him and stop visiting that site.” Then, we offered a Mass for Tancred. I came back to see if things have changed, but it’s all the same. I’m sorry, Tancred, but I can’t keep visiting your site if I’m going to be holy like my Pastor. Pray for me that I stay away from here.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE A POPE WHO DOES NOT INTERPRET THE ATHANASIUS CREED, THE DOGMA EENS AND VAITICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY'
Patrick Coffin,
How can you have a pope who interprets the Athanasius Creed irrationally and does not deny it? How can you have a pope who rejects the Athanasius Creed ?
How can you have a pope who interprets Vatican Council II irrationally to produce a break and rejection of the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
How can you have a pope who does not accept and interpret Vatican Council II 0and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally?
How can you have a pope who rejects the four marks of the Church ( Nicene Creed) by interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally in public ? The cardinals and bishops do not deny it.
I interpret all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils and Catechisms) rationally only. I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible, unknown as being known , subjective as being objective and then produced a nontraditional conclusion which is non Magisterial, non apostolic and a rupture with the pre-1949 Magisterium.
People now know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional, which the pope must accept. This is obligatory also for the cardinals and bishops.- Lionel Andrades
Dear Patrick,
Google has closed down my blog Eucharist and Mission ( blog owner Lionel Andrades) which said often that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one rational and the other irrational. For the Vigano-trial the irrational one was used. This is an injustice. With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, Cardinal Fernandez would have to affirm the Athanasius Creed which does not have any exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. LG 8,16 etc refer to invisible cases in 2025.
There is presently 'an apostolic visitation' of the FSSP underway in Rome. How can it be called 'apostolic ' when the false interpretation ,with the objective error is being used by the visiting delegation with the approval of Pope Francis. The irrational interpretation produces liberalism and a break with the Apostles and Church Fathers on EENS, the Creeds , Catechisms etc.
Should not Pope Francis in public affirm the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed with no visible exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
Should he not interpret the Council rationally to be a pope? Once he does this then he will be magisterial and traditional and non schismatic. It would be the same for the College of Cardinals.
In Christ
Lionel
WE DO NOT HAVE UNITY ON THE NICENE CREED WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
After 1700 since the Council of Nicea, Pope Francis has appealed to all Christians for unity but we do not have unity on this Creed and other Creeds within the Catholic Church itself.
The Nicene Creed as found on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website is as follows:
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
For me the Nicene Creed says ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.’ This refers to the baptism of water only which is seen and repeatable. It can be administered unlike the baptism of desire. So there is a reference to only one baptism and not three baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.
For Pope Francis the interpretation is different.
He accepts the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney(LOHO). This Letter confuses invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), defined by three Church Councils. He also interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, making the dogma EENS obsolete. In other words, there are visible cases of LG 8,16,UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, which are objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2025.So they are assumed to be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms which say outside the Church there is no salvation.
So for Pope Francis and the College of Cardinals there is the baptism of desire without the baptism of water, there is being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water etc. Invisible cases, without the baptism of water, are assumed to be exceptions for the dogma EENS, for the popes, cardinals and bishops in general.
The understanding of the Nicene Creed for them is ‘I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, which exclude the baptism of water.’ In this way they avoid the Feeneyite label.They are not considered Anti Semitic or fundamentalist. They have not returned to the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church which was exclusivist.
So their premise is irrational (invisible people are visible in the present times). There inference is false ( invisible people are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has become obsolete), Their nontraditional, false and liberal conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition in general. The New Theology from the 1949 LOHO says outside the Church there is known salvation; visible cases in the present times.
For me, after Vatican Council II, is interpreted rationally, the Church still maintains the old theology which says outside the Church there is no salvation. We still affirm the old exclusivist ecclesiology.
But this is not the understanding of Pope Francis who interprets all the Creed, Councils and Catechisms irrationally to produce a liberal, nontraditional and schismatic conclusion which is definitely not magisterial.
So we do not have unity on the Nicene Creed and neither on the Athanasius Creed and the Apostles Creed.
At the opening of the academic year at the Pontifical Gregorian University Rome, at Mass in their chapel the Nicene Creed was read together by the faculty, students and technical staff as an Oath of Fidelity to the Church. It was said that this is our faith, this is what the Church believes. But before 1949 the Church believed that the baptism of desire referred to a physically invisible case in our reality. This is common sense. It is common knowledge. So the premise before and after 1949 is different and so the conclusion and theology is also different.
So I believe in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and I am in union with the Apostles and Church Fathers. Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops are in a break with them.
-Lionel Andrades
Patrick Coffin,
You have to change your approach.
You have to ask Pope Francis direct questions like: ‘Could you please affirm the Athanasius Creed? He cannot do so. We will need a miracle.
Ask him to please affirm the Nicene Creed, interpreted rationally. He cannot do it. We will need a miracle.
If he affirmed the Nicene and Athanasius Creed rationally he would be a Feeneyite for the political Left.
Ask him to affirm Vatican Council II but interpret it only rationally. He cannot do this. For then he would be affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. Invisible cases of LG 8,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II would not be visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2025 . So they would not be objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed etc.
Ask him to accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It must only be interpreted rationally of course.
Only rationally! This is a given. He has a moral obligation to be honest. This will be difficult. He would have to say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 (saved in invincible ignorance) does not contradict CCC 845-846 (outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation). This is the opposite of what the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF Vatican) has been saying.
So can there be a pope who does not affirm and interpret the Creeds rationally? This must be your approach. Put the onus on the pope. Do not let him cite Vatican Council II, irrational to justify his liberalism and dissent.
When he changes the understanding of the Creeds presently, is this not first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II (Ad Tuendem Fidem)?
So you don’t have to go into sedevacantism. Simply affirm Magisterial Documents rationally and then their conclusion will be traditional. Then ask Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops to do the same.
-Lionel Andrades
IN THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE MUST REFER TO A HYPOTHETICAL AND INVISIBLE CASE IN 2025
Archbishop Viganò, Schism, and Francis—Marc Balestrieri
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKwtUw6UYxg
In the 1917 Code of Canon Law it has to be assumed that the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. It is always an invisible case for us human beings. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire.
So Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston when he assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire were visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1442 etc) had practical exceptions and so had become obsolete.
In the following links nowhere is the baptism of desire referred to as a literal and personally known case. Since the baptism of desire cannot be a literal case for us.
We must not confuse what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible.
The Harmony and Consistency of the Teaching of the Catholic Church on Baptism of Desire by Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
https://immaculateconceptioncmri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Baptism-of-Desire-and-of-Blood-Booklet.pdf
The Codes of Canon Law and 'Baptism of Desire'
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2008/07/code-of-canon-law-and-baptism-of-desire.html
The 1917 Code of Canon Law
https://vaticancatholic.com/1917-code-of-canon-law/
Baptism of Desire and of Blood
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
This position arises from a rigorist view on the Church teaching of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or “outside the Church there is no salvation.” It holds that one must be a card-carrying member of the Catholic Church without exception in order to be saved. A baptism of desire would, of course, be contrary to this position. Not all Sedevacantists hold to this rigorist view like the gentleman I had been corresponding with.
On baptism of desire, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (1260).
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-baptism-of-desire-heresy
So in the Patrick Coffin discussion on heresy and schism with canon lawyer Marc Balestrieri they did not note that the Athanasius Creed has exceptions for Pope Francis (baptism of desire etc) but none for me.
The Athanasius Creed, ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ is interpreted by them as ‘three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water’. For me it is only one baptism which is the baptism of water.
The Apostles Creed refers to the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church, which today teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation- for me. For them the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church teaches that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation: there is salvation.
So we do not have unity on the Creeds.
I am in harmony with the pre 1949 Magisterium. They are not.
To change the understanding of the Creeds is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.- Lionel Andrades
Could Marc Baliestri file a petition against the bishops of Frejuf Toulon, France, including Bishop Dominique Re, www.canonicalaid.org, pro bono pubblico,
stating that they are not Catholic according to the 1917 and Revised Code of Canon Law, since they do not affirm the Athanasius Creed , the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Nicene Creed, which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted only rationally. So the recent visitation in the diocese was not apostolic, since they were interpreting the Creeds, the Apostolic Signatura and bishops in general, who do not do this.
For the same reason, i.e. the irrational interpretation of Magisterial Documents ( Creeds etc), in the present ‘apostolic visitation’ of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) at the church Santissima Trinita dei Pelligrini, Rome, is not apostolic. It is doctrinally and theologically a rupture with the Church Fathers and the medieval popes. It is a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Church.
According to Canon Law a bishop must be a Catholic and he must affirm the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms in their original form. The 1917 Code of Canon Law mentions the baptism of desire for example, but does not state that it is a physically visible case. Common sense before 1949 understood the baptism of desire as not being a literal case. So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error when it confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS in 1949.
This objective mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II (LG 14 etc) and it has spread throughout the Church. It is assumed that there are alleged practical exceptions for the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed mentioned in Vatican Council II. This is the common irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The bishops will not affirm the Athanasius Creed etc falsely claiming there are practical exceptions in Vatican Council II. This is a rupture with the 1949 Magisterium.
We have now discovered that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, on rational and the other irrational.
So how can a pope, cardinal and bishop be Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II , only irrationally, to produce a nontraditional, liberal, heretical and schismatic conclusion, which is manifest and public and can be verified. It is formal. Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Viganò, Schism, and Francis—Marc Balestrieri
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKwtUw6UYxg
Dear Marc Balestrieri
When Fr. Laire issued the Decree of Prohibitions against the St. Benedict Center he was unethical. Since if he interpreted Vatican Council II rationally (and not irrationally and unethically as at present) then he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS like the St. Benedict Centers in the diocese of Manchester and Worcester, USA. The Decree of Prohibitions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would apply to him.
You could use what I write here in your defense in court. I am available to provide you with all the information you need. Also Sisters at the St. Benedict Center, NH are familiar with what I have been writing and agree with me. They could help you if you have any questions.
This is an important issue and justice should also be done in the Archbishop Vigano case. Think: if Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez interpreted Vatican Council II like me, then he would be affirming the Athanasius Creed and Tradition of Archbishop Vigano. He would be in schism for Pope Francis, who interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally.
In Christ
Lionel Andrades
Dear Marc Balestrieri,
With the Lionel Andrades Apologetics you could still tell Fr. Georges de Laire , Judicial Vicar, New Hampshire, USA and Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire that they are unethical, insincere, incoherent and vindictive. They are politically motivated on Catholic doctrine and not Catholic.
I had mentioned this many times on my blog Eucharist and Mission which Google closed down last October and destroyed all the content. I have also been cancelled from Face book. On my Twitter account there my report with the photographs of Fr. De Laire and Damien Fisher. It probably still is there.
My apologetics is based upon LG 8, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being only hypothetical. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center NH agree with me. Everyone agrees with me. Since it is common knowledge that we cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church in the present times. This is a given.
But if Fr. Georges de Laire says that LG 8 etc refer to hypothetical cases only and so do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the three Church Councils, then he is saying that there are no exceptions for the dogma EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II. The Council also does not contradict the Athanasius Creed and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846).This is huge. It is a complete turnaround. He is then affirming EENS according to Brother Andre Marie MICM and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the pre-1949 Magisteruim of the Catholic Church.
But in spite of being reminded Fr. Laire, Bishop Libasci and the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, do not do this. They know the implications. So they fake it. They do not respond. I have e-mailed the Curia at Manchester many times but no one has responded. They know the implications.
They pretend that Vatican Council II has practical exceptions for the dogma EENS etc and so they do not affirm de fide teachings of the Church, which are required by Canon Law. On the other hand, Brother Andre Marie micm, for example, is ready to affirm all Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally. But the Diocese of Manchester and the Vatican cannot say the same. Since they are dishonest in public. This is official and formal. It is public heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II, since they change the understanding of the Creeds. They have to use the false premise (invisible people are visible), and false inference (visible cases of LG 8, 16 etc are objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so the dogma EENS has exceptions and has become obsolete). So their false conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. Then they are not required to affirm any more, the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS and the Nicene Creed interpreted rationally. So today Fr. Georges de Laire and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, will not affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally etc. Unethical! - Lionel Andrades
Medjugorje: The Beginning of the End? by Patrick Coffin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nQ_N5F9c5Q
i have been posting these comments to Patrick Coffin and Marc Baliestieri and have received no response.
They still want to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally in public ? There is no denial from them?
Coffin is criticizing Medugorje as if he is faithful to Catholic Tradition ?
He does not want to be Anti Semitic ? And so he continues to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally, like Donal Foley.
The Vicar of Christ is also interpreting Magisterial Documents irrationally and so unethically. It is the same with the bishop of Mostar.
-Lionel Andrades
Patrick Coffin SHOCKED Studying the Truth About Vatican II: Hermeneutic of Continuity or Rupture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnJhavpjRU
Patrick Coffin does not know about the Lionel Andrades Apologetics. It is a breakthrough on Vatican Council II. It is a discovery. Something completely new. It is unbelievable. It was not known to the Jewish infiltration, Michael Davies or Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was not spoken about by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. It is still not known to Protestants.
It is not known to the Tridentate Catholics today.
It is simple. The bottom line is that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible cases in 1965-2025.
It is as simple as this.
Just affirm this and then seen the new, or rather, traditional conclusions.
LG 16 for example is not an objective case in 2025. We cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance over the last five years.
This is an insight which was not known to the Iota Unam of Romano Amerio. It was not known to Prof. Mattei.
They are correct. Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition but only when LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to physically examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the three Church Councils which defined it and did not mention any exceptions.
This insight was only there in the writing of Lionel Andrades and was expressed on his blog Eucharist and Mission. The blog has been closed down.
There is no post and pre Conciliar Church which is different for Lionel. The ecclesiology is the same since Vatican Council II, with hypotherical cases of LG 8 etc, do having exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX , the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.
This is a big breakthrough.
It means the only rational option which the College of Cardinals have in future for the interpretation of Vatican Council II, is a traditional one.
Rome has come back to the Faith.
- Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment