Bishop of Frejus-Toulon is Being Railroaded by Bergoglian Hatchetmen
Edit: as predicted. What took them so long?
AMDG
41 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The bishop does not know that Vatican Council II ( rational ) supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Trdaition. It is Pope Francis who justifies his liberalism with Vatican Council II interpreted irrrationally- this is also the sad interpretation of Vatican Council II by the French bishops and cardinals. -Lionel Andrades
The investigation was on for a long time. A spokesman for the bishop or Una Voce or the Latin Mass societies should have announced that :- 1. Vatican Council II supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions), the Athanasius Creed ( with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with no known exceptons for an ecumenism of return. So the Council has a continuity with Tradition including the exclusvist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the 16th century. The Council is aid for Bishop Rey and not the investigators who affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted only irrationally to produce innovation in the Church. The exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II, rational, must be the standard and traditional ecclesiology of the Catholic Church even at the Novus Ordo Masss in France. Also visitations must affirm Church Documents interpreted only rationally.Irrational interpretations are not Magisterial. Bishop Dominique Rey was not obliged to welcome apostolic visitors who interpret Magisterial Documents in a non apostolic way. This should have been made clear a long time by traditionalist websites. So doctrinally and theologically it is Pope Francis and the liberal cardinals who are on the defensive.They can no more support their liberalism in faith and morals, with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. -Lionel Andrades
Even now with the bishop removed there can be a canonical appeal in that diocese. For example, if someone would finance a canonist, he could inform the diocese that according to me , Lionel Andrades, the visitation was non apostolic. Since the visitors interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, unlike me.I interpret the Council rationally. So their liberal conclusion is a break with Tradition. For me there is a continuity with Tradition. Also the visitors accept the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston without correcting the mistake. For the visitation, invisible cases of the baptism of desire were projected as visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This is irrational and dishonesr. This results in new doctrine which is not apostolic. This is a disqualification for the visitation. There would be no denial from them.They would have to dmit that I interpret Lumen Gentium 14 as being a hypothetical and invisible case in 2025. For them LG 14 is an exception for the dogma EENS.So they imply that LG 14 refers to a known non Catholic in 2025 saved outside the Church, thus making the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors obsolete. Athanasius Creed obsolete for them but not for me? The Athanasius Creed has exceptions for them but not for me? Thre Athanasius Creed is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles for me but not for them ? So I would be saying that according to canon law the visitors reject the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms while I interpret them rationally and accept them.Vatican Council II is in harmony with the Tradition of Bishop Rey. -Lionel Andrades
Today I briefly met the Decan of the Factulty of Canon Law at the University San John Lateran, Rome. His name is Paulo Gherri. He would not answer any question on Vatican Council II with reference to Canon Law. The professor has been associated with the Signatura the Supreme Tribunal of the Vatican.They all interpret Vatican Council II irrationally as a rule and follow the objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of fthe Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. A Canonist could call attention to the dishonest theology at this university and the mistake of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( Holy Office ) in the 1949 Letter. We now know that LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II interpreted as invisible and hypothetical cases in 2025 do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and all the Catechisms. The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles. There is no rupture. But for the ecclesiastical visitors in this French diocese, also for the visitation of the FSSP and the trial of Archbishop Vigno, Vatican Council II was interpreted as a rupture with Tradition and support for liberalism in faith and morals.In other words LG 89,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 referrred to non- invisible cases for them to be exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Athanasius Creed etc.Someone has to be present to be an exception. What is invisible has to be assumed to be visible for there to be a rupture with Tradition.The confusion creates the liberal conclusion. This is the approach of the visitation cardinals and bishops. So it is here that a canonist is needed. The visitations are non apostolic. Their doctrine and theology is non apostolic. They are not Magisterial. Since Vatican Council II has to be interpreted rationally and so honestly for it to be Magisterial. This is common sense. So a canonist simply has to bring out all this information.- Lionel Andrades
"The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles." That's an almighty sweep Lionel. Please share with us what every Church Father and every Apostle, verbatim and in order please, had to say about 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
Today I went to the church Trinita dei Monti at the top of Piazza Spagna Rome. It is the centrer of the Emmanuel community. This is the French missionary community to which the bishop belongs. The Superior was not there. He is in France. There must be a crisis Since this community known for its eva ngelisation wil also be measured by Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. So they will have to conform to the non apostolic visitation based upon the irrational interpretation of the Council. Yesterday the Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law would not discuss Vatican Council II rational. Since he would have to then affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla slaus and the past exclusivist ecclesiology. Paolo Gherri would have to support traditonal mission which is ecclesiocentric and not only Christocentric. It is unfortunate that the Emmanuel community is also Christocentric and not Ecclesiocentric since they know only of Vatican Council II irrational.S o they cannot protest against the non Apostolic visitation . Even the Spostolic Signatura, the Supreme Tribunal at the Vatican, cannot call itself -apostolic- since their interpretation of the Councils , Creeds and Catechisms is not apostolic. It is irrational and so not Magisterial.At the Faculties of Canon Law in Rome, the moral theology they teach is based upon the liberal and irrational interpretation of the Council. It is the same Masonic interpretatoin of the Bologna School and the Archbishop of Bologna, both approved by the European Union.Their interpretation is political and so not apostolic.Similarly Pope Francis will be magisterial and apostolic on Vatican Council II only when he interprets it rationally and honestly like me. An organisation or network is needed to defend bishops like Dominique Rey and others from objectively non apostolic visitations..The data is all available. It is there up front. It only needs to be applied in public. Lionel Andrades
"The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles." That's an almighty sweep Lionel Lionel. When LG 8,14,16,UR 3,,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only and when they refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2025, then there is nothing in Vastican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. The Council does not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church seen in the Catechisms and for example the Athanasius Creed. On the other hand, Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and bap'tism for salvation. AG 7 is saying that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation from Hell. In other words extra ecclesiam nulla salus. AG 7 supports the Fourth Lateran Council on EENS.It is in harmony with the Council of Florence, which did not mention any exceptions for EENS.
MCELROY IS NON APOSTOLIC. HIS APPOINTMENT MUST BE OPPOSED CANONICALLY Pope Francis appointed Cardinal McElroy the Archbishop of Washington . This must be contested canonically since McElroy does not affirm the Councils, Creeds and Catechisms interpreted rationally. He interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally .So the conclusion is liberal and non apostolic. He should not be part of any visitation in any diocese. He must not have the right to grant the mandatum to teach theology in Washington. When the Council is interpreted rationally i.e. LG 16 refers to a hypothetical case only, then the conclusion is traditional. The Council is exclusivist.It is not only Christocentric but also Ecclesiocentric. So homosexual unions and Amoris Laetitia can no more be justified in the name of Vatican Council II. We now konw that the Council can be interpreted rationally. For me, LG 8,14,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2025 and so they do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechisms of Pius X, Baltimore and Trent. Vatican Council II has continuity with Tradition for me. For McElroy the Council is a break with Tradition. He implies that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed etc in 2025. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, has practical exceptions for McElro. It is made obsolete. For him Vatican Council II is a revolution, a new revelation in the Church. He reaches this conclusion by publically confusing what is invisible as being visible.- Lionel Andrades
THE CDF/ DDF HAS MADE PUBLIC MISTAKES WHICH NEED TO BE CORRECTED. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT THE DDF WILL BE APOSTOLIC The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican has made a mistake when they projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston 1949).The CDF repeated this mistake in communication with the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire and Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, NH. The CDF projected the Catechism of the Catholic Church (847-848-being saved in invincible ignorance etc) as being visible and practical exceptions for CCC 845,846 ( Outside the Church No Salvation).They were projected as exceptions for the three Church Councils which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Bishop Andre Marie micm and his community Slaves of the Immaculate HEart of Mary were being coerced to accept this public error. This is not Apostolic or Magisterial. The CDF /DDF should also not appoint non Apostolic visitations like the one in Frejeuf-Toulon. The appointment of the new bishop can be contested. He violates Canon Law in public. The interpretation of the Creeds etc cannot be changed. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican also made a mistake in the Vigano case when they accused the Italian archbishop of heresy and schism, for not accepting Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. They wanted the archbishop to accept the non traditional conclusion. With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally the DDF would have to accept Tradition.The DDF would be supporting the traditionlists at the St. Benedict Center, on doctrine and theology- Lionel Andrades
EVEN TRADITIONALIST RECTORS AND BISHOPS CAN BE NON APOSTOLIC. IT DEPENDS UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
When filing an appeal against a cardinal or bishop or rector it must be kept in mind that:- 1. Pope Pius XII overlooked the objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. 2. Pope Paul VI did the same at Vatican Council II in 1965 .The CDF overlooked the mistake. 3. Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger made the same mistake in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now the Catechism can be interpreted rationally or irrationally, with Feeneyism or Cushingism. Even the web blog Rorate Caeili has it wrong on Tradition because of the false premise (invisible people are visible), false inference (Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times) and false conclusion (Vatican Council II is a rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology and the rest of Tradition. Tradition has been made obsolete). For me there is the rational premise (invisible cases are invisible in 2025), rational inference (invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).So my rational conclusion is that Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition, it has a continuity with the past Magisterium when it is interpreted rationally. So today Edward Schaefer’s ‘traditional college’ is modernist because of the fake premise, inference and conclusion. The same error is made by Bishop Strickland and Terry Barber at Virgin Most Pure Radio.It is the same with Jesse Romero and his bishop. When invisible cases are seen as being only invisible I call it Feeneyism. When invisible cases are seen as being physically visible I call it Cushinigsm. The Latin Mass in the 16th century was Feeneyite and not Cushingite. So it is not enough to say that 'we support he Latin Mass'. The ecclesiology will be different for the Lefebvrists, who are Cushingites and the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire. Even traditionalist bishops and rectors can be non apostolic. When St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned the man in the forest in ignorance, who was to be sabed , when a preacher would be sent to him, this was a hypothhetical caes. Aquinas was Feeenyite.Yet for some tradionalists Aquinas was Cushingite. Even the sedevacantists bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas interpret being saved in invincible ignorance, with irrational Cushingism. --Lionel Andrades
A CARDINAL, BISHOP OR PRIEST WHO INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY AND SO DISHONESTLY MUST BE CHECKED CANNONICALLY.
Italian bishop defends nation against Islam: ‘Equating religions is an insult to intelligence’ https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/italian-bishop-defends-nation-against-islam-equating-religions-is-an-insult-to-intelligence/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa
Bishop Suetta has not touched the issue of Vatican Council II rational and irrational, Feeneyite and Cushingite. With Vatican Council II, rational,invisible cases of LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not physically visible exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. So Vatican Council II is saying in Ad Gentes 7 that all Muslims need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation from Hell. All. The Council also indicates that Mohammad is in Hell since he died without faith and the baptism of water. This is the traditional and rational interpretation of Vatican Council II. This is not just my opinion. I am following the text. So in the Catechism of the Catholic Church , CCC 847-848 ( invincible ignorance etc) will not contradict CCC 845-846 ( outside the Church no salvation). This the post Vatican Council II Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. It is not Magisterial to interpret irrationally. We must not interpret invisible cases of LG 8,14.,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being objective exceptions for Ad Gentes 7. This is irrational and dishonest and it is common in the Catholic Church. So for instance, the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Rector of the Gregorian University Rome and the Jesuits at Boston College can be checked canonically. .-Lionel Andrades
"The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles." That's an almighty sweep Lionel. Please share with us what every Church Father and every Apostle, verbatim and in order please, had to say about 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles." Lionel from Wikipedia Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was defined by three Church Councils. The text is there on Wikipedia. It is also available on Catholicism.org the website of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA. Councils Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved".[25] Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".[26]
Pope Boniface VIII's bull Unam sanctam of 1302... "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins".. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus INVISIBLE CASES IN 2025 OF LG 8,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 ARE NOT OBJECTIVE EXCEPTIONS FOR THE THREE CHURCH COUNCILS ABOVE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS. THEY ALSO DO NOT CONTRADICT THE ATHANASIUS CREED AND NEITHER THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS OF POPE PIUS IX AND NEITHER THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X. THE COUNCIL IS IN HARMONY WITH TRADITION - Lionel Andrades
TO BE APOSTOLIC POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE ATHANASIUS CREED INTERPRETED ONLY RATIONALLY To be apostolic, Pope Francis must accept Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed interpreted rationally and not irrationally. If he cannot accept the Nicene and Apostles Creed interpreted only rationally, he should resign. If he cannot accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Creeds, which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II then he cannot hold office. This is public heresy and a scandal. Cardinals and bishops also have an obligation to accept the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms interpreted only rationally and so traditionally. They must then correct the pope. The Italian people must appeal to the pope to be honest. Salvini’s Lega must appeal to the pope to interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 as being only hypothetical and non objective cases in 1965-2025. The president of Italy, Sergio Mattarella cannot be a Catholic when he does not interpret Magisterial Documents (Creeds etc) rationally. The Council is no more liberal. The people have a rational alternative. The Oath of Office , Bishops ‘s Oath, Oath Against Modernism and the religious Vow of Obedience must be based upon Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. The Council then does not have any exceptions for the traditional exclusivist understanding of the Nicene , Apostles and Athanasius Creeds. These Creeds have to be interpreted rationally when there is a reference to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. The sedevacantists, Cionici, Barnhardt and Peter and Michael Dimond also interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally.They So they cannot correct the pope. – Lionel Andrades
SEDES MUST CHANGE THEIR APPROACH : POPE FRANCIS IS OBJECTIVELY NON APOSTOLIC It is time for frustrated sedevacantists to change their approach. Simply ask Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops to interpret LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II rationally. If he interprets the Council rationally he would be opposing the liberals and the political- Left. Pope Francis would come back to Tradition. The pope will no more be in schism. So sedevacantists must affirm Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents rationally and then demand that the pope do the same. Catholics in general must make this demand. VATICAN COUNCIL II For me LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible cases in 1965-2025. For Pope Francis they refer to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc. This is a big difference and must be checked canonically in individual cases.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH For me CCC 847-848 refer to hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict CCC 845-846 on outside the Church there is no salvation. For Pope Francis and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, it is the opposite.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON(1949)
The first part of this Letter supports traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the second part projects invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as mentioned in the first part of the Letter. I accept the first part and do not accept the objective error in the second part of the Letter. Pope Francis accepts the objective error in the second part of this Letter.
"every Church Father and every Apostle: is what I'm looking for Lionel. You assert but can't deliver evidence from every one of them, verbatim and in historical order.
"every Church Father and every Apostle: is what I'm looking for Lionel... Lionel: The Apostles, the Church Fathers and the medieval popes affirmed the teaching that outside of Jesus and the Church he founded, which was the Catholic Church only, there is no salvation from Hell. St. Augustine, St, Thomas Aquinas and the saints and popes over the centuries held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla defined by three Church Councils. Here they are-. Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Pope Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302 Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441) The same teaching is there in Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, while invisible in 2025, cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not practical exceptions for these three Church Councils on EENS. . Neither do they contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. So Vatican Council II is in harmony with the apostles, the Church Fathers and the popes over the centuries on there being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church, Jesus Mystical Body. The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was lifted by Pope Paul VI after the priest recited the Athanasius Creed.It says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. - Lionel Andrades
POPE FRANCIS MUST APOLOGISE FOR THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF FR. LEONARD FEENEY AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated when he did not say anything new. It was the CDF ( Holy Office) which projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Similarly Archbishop Lefebvre was correct when he refused to accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, whose conclusion is non traditional, heretical and schismatic. The popes accepted the new liberalism with the Council interpreted irrationally by the CDF. Today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and Pope Francis make the same irrational mistake. Their interpretation is dishonest. Sedevacantists must not that the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Francis is not magisterial. It will be Magisterial only when he interprets the Council rationally and so traditionally, in harmony with the popes over the centuries. When he interprets Vatican Council II rationally, sedevacantists must note, he is in continuity with the pre-1949 Magisterium. Before 1949 they did not interpret the baptism of desire as being a visible case, a literal case, known in the present times. If Pope Francis is not in continuity with the pre-1949 Magisterium he is in public schism on Vatican Council II etc. He still interprets the Council as a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium. The SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, by the pope, i.e. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a physically visible case in 2025 for him. They must insist that all the cardinals, bishops and the pope interpret LG 16 as being an invisible case in 2025. They must also ask Pope Francis to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Lefebvre. - Lionel Andrades
Fail, Lionel. You made a claim and you cannot support it with the detailed teaching of every Apostle (all 12-14 of them) and every Church Father on 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' I suspect that you won't deliver because you can't.
I'm looking for exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father, Lionel. You're faking it with the vacuous ambit claims. Get serious Lionel other wise you continue to be an ongoing butt of derision.
I'm looking for exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father, Lionel... If you are looking for exact quotes you will have to check the many Catholic websites which have apologetic material. On extra ecclesiam nulla salus I gave you the link to Wikipedia. Please do not expect me to unload long quotes in the comment section of Tancred’s blog. Before 1949 the teachings of the Catholic Church were consistent. There was no liberalism. So the popes and saints, like the Church Fathers and Apostles were consistent. This was the Magisterium. This was the teaching authority of the Church.This was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. This Magisterium is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and so is Magisterial. The three sources of knowledge are Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. I follow all three. I follow the Magisterium of Vatican Council II interpreted only rationally. If the pope is not doing so (and he is not) then he is not Magisterial on Vatican Council II, like me.Before 1949 theye did not interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally, as Pope Francis does today.- Lionel Andrades
POPE FRANCIS SAYS METHODISTS WILL BE SAVED BASED UPON PETER DIMOND'S INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II : I REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION.
Francis Tells Female “Bishop” That Methodists Will Be Saved https://endtimes.video/francis-methodists-female-bishop/
Pope Francis tells female Methodist bishop that she will be saved and Peter Dimond objects. But he says this based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and dishonestly to produce nontraditional liberalism. This is also the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Peter Dimond. I interpret Vatican Council II rationally unlike the both of them. So the Council is orthodox, traditional and exclusivist. It has a continuity with the past which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists and other Christians are oriented to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water ( Ad Gentes 7, CCC 845,846 etc). How can Pope Francis and Peter Dimond say they are Catholic when they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and I do not do so ? How can they say they are Catholics when they interpret all the Catechisms irrationally and I do not do so ? How can they say they are Catholic when they interpret the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed irrationally and I do not do so? Pope Francis says Methodists will be saved based upon Peter Dimond's interpretation of Vatican Council II. - Lionel Andrades
1. If what I am saying according to the Bible, Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is terrorist then so even the Quran, Mohammad the Islamic Tradition ( hadees) is terrorist for saying there is exclusive salvation in the Mohammadan religion. 2. If I should be sent home because of my Catholic religious beliefs then so also the Muslim police and carabinieri and their families, who follow the Quran and Sunnah. 3. There is no announcement from the Ministry of Interior, Italy saying that the Bible, Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and Creeds are terrorist and so Catholics should not quote them in churches or outside the churches in Rome. I affirm the same Magisterial Documents as the Catholic police in Italy. 4. I accept the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, expressed in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally only. Pope Francis is Magisterial only when he interprets Magisterial Documents rationally. 5. I accept the Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition. I accept Vatican Council II and interpret it rationally. Pope Francis also accepts Vatican Council II but interprets it irrationally. I am in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Council of Trent and the Athanasius Creed, interpreted rationally. He is not in harmony with de fide teachings and Magisterial Documents of the Catholic Church. It is the same for the cardinals and bishops. The error is objective and can be verified in public. – Lionel Andrades
Lol send your list to the email on the blog, Lionel. Lionel: I could send you the Syllabus for a course in Patristics.
I AM MAGISTERIAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II. POPE FRANCIS IS IRRATIONAL AND UNETHICAL AND SO NOT MAGISTERIAL : THERE IS A FALSE RUPTURE WITH THE PRE-1949 MAGISTERIUM FOR HIM BUT NOT FOR ME I am Magisterial on Vatican Council II, Pope Francis is not. I accept the Council and interpret it rationally. Pope Francis also accepts the Council but interprets it irrationally. The sources of knowledge in the Catholic Church, for me, are the Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition. But not for Pope Francis. I accept the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit, in Vatican Council II, the Creeds and the Councils, interpreted only rationally. Pope Francis interprets them only irrationally and so unethically. The pope is obligated to affirm the Magisterium of the Church only then he becomes magisterial. What I say here is in harmony with the Church Fathers as taught in Patristic courses all over the world. The Church Fathers were consistent with the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus Christ, John Henry Newman discovered, before he became a Catholic. – Lionel Andrades
SUGGESTED : PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL AT HOLY MASS IN ENGLISH FROM LIONEL ANDRADES’ APOLOGETICS 1. That Pope Francis know that Lumen Gentium 16 in Vatican Council II, refers to a person invisible and so is not an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed. Let us pray. 2. Those in Rome people in general know that the Bible, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not terrorist. Let us pray. 3. That Catholics learn that Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that all need faith and baptism for salvation. Let us pray. 4. That the Church discover that Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and not irrationally, has a continuity with the Magisterium and Missionaries of the 16th century, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 5. That people learn that the Councils, the Creeds and Catechisms say that in Heaven there are only Catholics. Let us pray. - Lionel Andrades
What sort of Gunja are you smoking, Lionel? You're doing the Grand Circle route over and over again without providing what you have been requested: exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father on no salvation outside the Church. Lionel, you are a great disappointment.
..exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father on no salvation outside the Church. Lionel. I made the time to study the Patristics before I came on Tancred's blog.It helps.
My discovery is on Vatican Council II. It can be interpreted rationally and so differently from that of everyone else. They are irrational. When it is interpreted rationally the Council then supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So when I affirm EENS I am not citing all the Apostles and Church Fathers only, as you put it, but Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
NO HELP FOR BISHOP REY FROM EDMUND MAZZA, ALEX BUGNOLO, ANN BARNHARDT AND ANDREA CIONICI
1. I interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II rationally. Pope Francis, Edmund Mazza, Ann Barnhardi, Andrea Cionici and Alex Bugnolo interpret LG 8 etc irrationally. 2. I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845-846 (outside the Church no salvation) traditionally and so also CCC 847-848 (saved in invincible ignorance). The latter (CCC 847-848) are not objective exceptions for the former in 2025. They instead interpret them irrationally. The result is liberalism which opposes the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass. 3. I interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q-oustide the Church no salvation) rationally with 29Q not being an objective exception for 24Q and 27 Q. For them, 29Q contradicts 24Q and 27Q.They confuse what is invisible as being visible. They make the same mistake with other Catechisms, which I avoid.They they believe Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. 4. I interpret the Athanasius Creed in its original understanding, they produce ‘known exceptions’ and so change its meaning.It is the same with the Nicene and Apostles Creed. We interpret them differently when there is a reference to the baptism of desire etc.'I believe in three or more known and visible baptisms for the forgivess of sins and they exclude the baptism of water' ( Nicene Creed). 'The Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today that outside the Church there is known salvation. In the past the Holy Spirit taught the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation'(Apostles Creed) 5. I interpret the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney traditionally. They are irrational and so heretical and schismatic.
So it is no surprise that no one of them came to the defense of Bishop Dominique Rey, doctrinally and theologically. The French bishop himself interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally, like the Emmanuel religious community, to which he belongs. Now based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, which supports liberalism and innovation, with a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they are talking of eliminating the Latin Mass completely, and no one contests this, by citing Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally. – Lionel Andrades
",,,,I made the time to study the Patristics before I came on Tancred's blog.It helps." That's not only a lame duck excuse Lionel, it's an admission of smoke and mirror voodoo. Go back to Pakistan where you are needed to spread JPII's 'New Evangelization.' You'd be bigger gig than Imran Khan.
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A BREAK WITH THE SCHOLASTIC PERIOD FOR THE SCHOLASTICUM BUT NOT FOR ME. Rev. Walter Covens, M. A. Theo. Is the President of the Schloasticum.Father Covens was ordained a Catholic priest on August 28, 1983, and has served as a Fidei Donum priest, as a parish Priest, university chaplain, spiritual director, and hospital chaplain, in the Diocese of Martinique, France. He has accepted his position as President of the Scholasticum institute with the permission of his ordinary. The Scholasticum it is stated is an institute for the study of Scholastic Theology and Philosophy according to the methods of Saints Thomas Aquinas, O. P., and Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, O. Minors. Covens translated into French the Italian best-seller, “Le Ratzinger code”, by Andrea Cionci (2022). Of What good is the study of the Scholastic period or even the Patristics when they are contradicted by the New Theology created in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally. The faulty would be in error if they interpreted Vatican Council II like the Lefebvrists or the St. Benedict Centers. Pope John Paul II interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and he was not told that there was a rational option. This rational option is not known to the faculty of the Scholasticum:-
Dr. Pilar Herráiz Oliva, Ph. D. Philosophy Br. Alexis Bugnolo Dr. Enrico Moro Dr. Rosa Marulo Dr. Christopher Cleveland Dr. Gianluca Pilara Dr. Francisco Romero Carrasquillo Dr. Edmund J. Mazza Dr. Stephanie Delmas Dr. Wm. Christopher Hoag Professor Alvaro Berrocal Sarnelli Prof. Brett W. Smith
For al of them Vatican Council II is a break with St. Thomas Aquinas but not for me. - Lionel Andrades
You have been requested to list: exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father on the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church. Lionel: You don't need to know what every Apostle and Church Father said on the teaching outside the Church, Jesus' Mystical Body, there is no salvation. Just interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally. They too are saying outside the Church there is no salvation ( AG 7, CCC 845,846 etc).This is the DISCOVERY of the last 15 years in the Catholic Church. - Lionel Andrades
FRENCH CANON LAWYERS NEEDED: NON APOSTOLIC BISHOPS The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake.The mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II and then in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Without this mistake the Council is in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It is in line with the exclusivism of the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (ecumenism of return with no known exceptions). There is no rupture with the catechisms of Pope Pius X, Trent and Baltimore. The Council supports the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. So Vatican Council II has a continuity with Tradition but the bishops of Frejus –Toulon, France, , interpret the Council as a rupture with Tradition. It is the same with the President of the Bishops Conference Italy (CEI), the Cardinal-Prefect of the Rome Vicariate and the Cardinal-Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. For them, the Council has alleged visible exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. There are objective exceptions for them, when the Catechisms affirm traditional, exclusivist EENS, with no known exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. So it is obvious that the French bishops, the cardinals at large, and the pope are irrational, dishonest, nontraditional, heretical and in schism with the Magisterium and missionaries of, for example, the 16th century. Their error is objective. Any one can check it. They are not Apostolic or Magisterial and this must be corrected canonically. They are in a rupture with the Church Fathers and the saints of the Patristic period. I affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony with Tradition. For me there is no rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Greek Mass and the Roman Missal of the Latin Mass. I am rational and honest. Any Canonist or Canon Lawyers Association is free to use this model (above) to ask juridical persons (Rectors, Superiors, bishops etc) to come back to the Catholic Faith of ancient Rome. I live with the Missionaries of Charity Contemplative Brothers, near Termini, Rome. This is the community co-founded by Mother Teresa and Fr. Sebastian Vazhakhala mc. who both innocently interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally like the rest of the Church. I live at their Home for the Aged, Casa Serena. I am 70 ‘and going strong’. I am also available to answer questions at 2 p.m daily at the church San Camillio de Lellis, Salustiana, off via 20 Settembre, Rome. I cannot be contacted via the phone or Internet- Lionel Andrades
THE BLOG 1PETER5 AND EWTN CONTINUE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY: THIS IS A POLITICAL ISSUE From the blog 1Peter5 Coming to terms with Vatican II Fr.Michael Brownson Jan.17,2025
Dignitatis Humanae has been one of the Vatican II documents most criticized by traditionalists. The criticism focuses on the affirmation of a “natural right to religious freedom”: “the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature” (DH)
Lionel: When the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not contradicted by Vatican Council II then the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation can be proclaimed. Membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation from Hell. So there is the necessity of the non separation of Church and State. Doctrinally, the Church returns to the time of the Papal States and the freedom they permitted for non Catholic religions-while the Catholic State and Catholic Church was not separated. ________________
That in turn throws light back on Lumen Gentium 14-17 and the Council’s seemingly rosy view about the prospect of salvation outside of the Church... Lionel: The writer has interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally. Lumen Gentium 14-17 can also be seen as invisible cases in 2025. So they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council has a continuity with Tradition but because of the EWTN policy, this is not being acknowledged by the editor. Those who interpret Vatican Council II rationally are automatically affirming the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they would be labelled by the Zionists, Masons and Jewish Left as being anti semitic, fundamentalist, terrorist etc.So Catholic traditionalists continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly for political-left reasons. It is prudent .So a full return to Catholic Tradition is not possible since traditionalists too want to maintain their status quo at the cost of the Church.- Lionel Andrades
WITH THE L.A APOLOGETICS CANONISTS CAN CHALLENGE RECTORS, SUPERIORS, BISHOPS ETC. We are at a historical period in the time of the Catholic Church, with just one move, one stroke, the whole Church comes back to Tradition. The rectors, superiors, bishops and cardinals when contacted have an obligation to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally. When the College of Cardinals intrepret Vatican Council II rationally then the next pope is expected to be a traditionalist. He is not a traditionalist according to the Lefebvrists or St. Benedict Centers or sedevacantists. Their interpretation of Vatican Council II is as irrational as that of the popes from Paul VI to Francis. Presently with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, a Canonist can do nothing against liberal and heretical bishops . But with the Lionel Andrades Apologetics the Canonist can challenge every rector, superior and bishop to interpret the Council only rationally and so honestly and come back to Catholic tradition. They are compelled by Vatican Council II, which no more is liberal. Pope Francis, cardinals Sarah, Muller and Burke can no more say that they accept the Athanasius Creed or the Nicene Creed.We now know there can be two interpretations of the Creeds, one rational and the other irrational. There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, rational and irrational. Their interpretation is irrational and so they are unable to check Pope Francis when he wants to eliminate the Latin Mass in the name of liberal Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally since the time of Pope Paul VI. Any canonist , or Catholic actvist, who needs help can connect me. It is free. Lionel Andrades
Lionel has claimed that, "The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles.". Now Lionel, provide verbatim quotes from every Church Father and every Apostle that shows this harmony with the Council. You made the claim, now support it with detailed evidence not with a cavalier brush off which is the hallmark of a hollow boaster and a lazy mind.
Lionel has claimed that, "The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles.". Lionel: From the website Catholicism.org Outside the Church there is no Salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
But man, following the example of his natural father, Adam, often disobeys the authority of God. The fact that the doctrine had to be thrice defined itself proves the Church’s paternal solicitude in correcting her erring children who fall into indifferentism. The first goal of Saint Benedict Center’s doctrinal Crusade is to defend this doctrine. We present here a selection of various articles written for that end.
Here are some recommended starting points on this all-important subject:
The Popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus The Fathers of the Church on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Doctrinal Summary Contd. https://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation ____________________________
Also see Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,1257 which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus quoted above. Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition and not a rupture. Collegiality will not be an issue when the pope, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since they will all be orthodox and traditional. There will not be a collegiality with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, to produce a non traditional, heretical and schismatic conclusion.- Lionel Andrades
41 comments:
The bishop does not know that Vatican Council II ( rational ) supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Trdaition. It is Pope Francis who justifies his liberalism with Vatican Council II interpreted irrrationally- this is also the sad interpretation of Vatican Council II by the French bishops and cardinals.
-Lionel Andrades
Nobody is as clued-in as you are.
Well, Bergoglio is a Jew, they all hate actual Catholics.
The investigation was on for a long time.
A spokesman for the bishop or Una Voce or the Latin Mass societies should have announced that :-
1. Vatican Council II supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions), the Athanasius Creed ( with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with no known exceptons for an ecumenism of return. So the Council has a continuity with Tradition including the exclusvist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the 16th century. The Council is aid for Bishop Rey and not the investigators who affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted only irrationally to produce innovation in the Church.
The exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II, rational, must be the standard and traditional ecclesiology of the Catholic Church even at the Novus Ordo Masss in France.
Also visitations must affirm Church Documents interpreted only rationally.Irrational interpretations are not Magisterial. Bishop Dominique Rey was not obliged to welcome apostolic visitors who interpret Magisterial Documents in a non apostolic way.
This should have been made clear a long time by traditionalist websites.
So doctrinally and theologically it is Pope Francis and the liberal cardinals who are on the defensive.They can no more support their liberalism in faith and morals, with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. -Lionel Andrades
Even now with the bishop removed there can be a canonical appeal in that diocese.
For example, if someone would finance a canonist, he could inform the diocese that according to me , Lionel Andrades, the visitation was non apostolic. Since the visitors interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, unlike me.I interpret the Council rationally. So their liberal conclusion is a break with Tradition. For me there is a continuity with Tradition.
Also the visitors accept the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston without correcting the mistake. For the visitation, invisible cases of the baptism of desire were projected as visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This is irrational and dishonesr. This results in new doctrine which is not apostolic. This is a disqualification for the visitation. There would be no denial from them.They would have to dmit that I interpret Lumen Gentium 14 as being a hypothetical and invisible case in 2025. For them LG 14 is an exception for the dogma EENS.So they imply that LG 14 refers to a known non Catholic in 2025 saved outside the Church, thus making the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors obsolete.
Athanasius Creed obsolete for them but not for me?
The Athanasius Creed has exceptions for them but not for me?
Thre Athanasius Creed is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles for me but not for them ?
So I would be saying that according to canon law the visitors reject the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms while I interpret them rationally and accept them.Vatican Council II is in harmony with the Tradition of Bishop Rey.
-Lionel Andrades
Today I briefly met the Decan of the Factulty of Canon Law at the University San John Lateran, Rome. His name is Paulo Gherri. He would not answer any question on Vatican Council II with reference to Canon Law. The professor has been associated with the Signatura the Supreme Tribunal of the Vatican.They all interpret Vatican Council II irrationally as a rule and follow the objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of fthe Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
A Canonist could call attention to the dishonest theology at this university and the mistake of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( Holy Office ) in the 1949 Letter.
We now know that LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II interpreted as invisible and hypothetical cases in 2025 do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and all the Catechisms.
The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles. There is no rupture.
But for the ecclesiastical visitors in this French diocese, also for the visitation of the FSSP and the trial of Archbishop Vigno, Vatican Council II was interpreted as a rupture with Tradition and support for liberalism in faith and morals.In other words LG 89,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 referrred to non- invisible cases for them to be exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Athanasius Creed etc.Someone has to be present to be an exception. What is invisible has to be assumed to be visible for there to be a rupture with Tradition.The confusion creates the liberal conclusion.
This is the approach of the visitation cardinals and bishops. So it is here that a canonist is needed.
The visitations are non apostolic. Their doctrine and theology is non apostolic.
They are not Magisterial. Since Vatican Council II has to be interpreted rationally and so honestly for it to be Magisterial. This is common sense.
So a canonist simply has to bring out all this information.- Lionel Andrades
"The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles." That's an almighty sweep Lionel. Please share with us what every Church Father and every Apostle, verbatim and in order please, had to say about 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
Today I went to the church Trinita dei Monti at the top of Piazza Spagna Rome. It is the centrer of the Emmanuel community. This is the French missionary community to which the bishop belongs. The Superior was not there. He is in France. There must be a crisis Since this community known for its eva ngelisation wil also be measured by Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. So they will have to conform to the non apostolic visitation based upon the irrational interpretation of the Council.
Yesterday the Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law would not discuss Vatican Council II rational. Since he would have to then affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla slaus and the past exclusivist ecclesiology. Paolo Gherri would have to support traditonal mission which is ecclesiocentric and not only Christocentric. It is unfortunate that the Emmanuel community is also Christocentric and not Ecclesiocentric since they know only of Vatican Council II irrational.S o they cannot protest against the non Apostolic visitation . Even the Spostolic Signatura, the Supreme Tribunal at the Vatican, cannot call itself -apostolic- since their interpretation of the Councils , Creeds and Catechisms is not apostolic. It is irrational and so not Magisterial.At the Faculties of Canon Law in Rome, the moral theology they teach is based upon the liberal and irrational interpretation of the Council. It is the same Masonic interpretatoin of the Bologna School and the Archbishop of Bologna, both approved by the European Union.Their interpretation is political and so not apostolic.Similarly Pope Francis will be magisterial and apostolic on Vatican Council II only when he interprets it rationally and honestly like me. An organisation or network is needed to defend bishops like Dominique Rey and others from objectively non apostolic visitations..The data is all available. It is there up front. It only needs to be applied in public. Lionel Andrades
"The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles." That's an almighty sweep Lionel
Lionel. When LG 8,14,16,UR 3,,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only and when they refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2025, then there is nothing in Vastican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. The Council does not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church seen in the Catechisms and for example the Athanasius Creed.
On the other hand, Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and bap'tism for salvation. AG 7 is saying that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation from Hell. In other words extra ecclesiam nulla salus. AG 7 supports the Fourth Lateran Council on EENS.It is in harmony with the Council of Florence, which did not mention any exceptions for EENS.
MCELROY IS NON APOSTOLIC. HIS APPOINTMENT MUST BE OPPOSED CANONICALLY
Pope Francis appointed Cardinal McElroy the Archbishop of Washington . This must be contested canonically since McElroy does not affirm the Councils, Creeds and Catechisms interpreted rationally. He interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally .So the conclusion is liberal and non apostolic. He should not be part of any visitation in any diocese. He must not have the right to grant the mandatum to teach theology in Washington.
When the Council is interpreted rationally i.e. LG 16 refers to a hypothetical case only, then the conclusion is traditional. The Council is exclusivist.It is not only Christocentric but also Ecclesiocentric. So homosexual unions and Amoris Laetitia can no more be justified in the name of Vatican Council II. We now konw that the Council can be interpreted rationally.
For me, LG 8,14,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2025 and so they do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechisms of Pius X, Baltimore and Trent. Vatican Council II has continuity with Tradition for me. For McElroy the Council is a break with Tradition. He implies that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed etc in 2025. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, has practical exceptions for McElro. It is made obsolete. For him Vatican Council II is a revolution, a new revelation in the Church. He reaches this conclusion by publically confusing what is invisible as being visible.- Lionel Andrades
THE CDF/ DDF HAS MADE PUBLIC MISTAKES WHICH NEED TO BE CORRECTED. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT THE DDF WILL BE APOSTOLIC
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican has made a mistake when they projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston 1949).The CDF repeated this mistake in communication with the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire and Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, NH. The CDF projected the Catechism of the Catholic Church (847-848-being saved in invincible ignorance etc) as being visible and practical exceptions for CCC 845,846 ( Outside the Church No Salvation).They were projected as exceptions for the three Church Councils which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Bishop Andre Marie micm and his community Slaves of the Immaculate HEart of Mary were being coerced to accept this public error. This is not Apostolic or Magisterial.
The CDF /DDF should also not appoint non Apostolic visitations like the one in Frejeuf-Toulon. The appointment of the new bishop can be contested. He violates Canon Law in public. The interpretation of the Creeds etc cannot be changed.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican also made a mistake in the Vigano case when they accused the Italian archbishop of heresy and schism, for not accepting Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. They wanted the archbishop to accept the non traditional conclusion.
With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally the DDF would have to accept Tradition.The DDF would be supporting the traditionlists at the St. Benedict Center, on doctrine and theology- Lionel Andrades
EVEN TRADITIONALIST RECTORS AND BISHOPS CAN BE NON APOSTOLIC. IT DEPENDS UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
When filing an appeal against a cardinal or bishop or rector it must be kept in mind that:-
1. Pope Pius XII overlooked the objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
2. Pope Paul VI did the same at Vatican Council II in 1965 .The CDF overlooked the mistake.
3. Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger made the same mistake in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now the Catechism can be interpreted rationally or irrationally, with Feeneyism or Cushingism.
Even the web blog Rorate Caeili has it wrong on Tradition because of the false premise (invisible people are visible), false inference (Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times) and false conclusion (Vatican Council II is a rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology and the rest of Tradition. Tradition has been made obsolete).
For me there is the rational premise (invisible cases are invisible in 2025), rational inference (invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).So my rational conclusion is that Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition, it has a continuity with the past Magisterium when it is interpreted rationally.
So today Edward Schaefer’s ‘traditional college’ is modernist because of the fake premise, inference and conclusion. The same error is made by Bishop Strickland and Terry Barber at Virgin Most Pure Radio.It is the same with Jesse Romero and his bishop.
When invisible cases are seen as being only invisible I call it Feeneyism.
When invisible cases are seen as being physically visible I call it Cushinigsm.
The Latin Mass in the 16th century was Feeneyite and not Cushingite. So it is not enough to say that 'we support he Latin Mass'. The ecclesiology will be different for the Lefebvrists, who are Cushingites and the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire.
Even traditionalist bishops and rectors can be non apostolic.
When St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned the man in the forest in ignorance, who was to be sabed , when a preacher would be sent to him, this was a hypothhetical caes. Aquinas was Feeenyite.Yet for some tradionalists Aquinas was Cushingite. Even the sedevacantists bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas interpret being saved in invincible ignorance, with irrational Cushingism. --Lionel Andrades
A CARDINAL, BISHOP OR PRIEST WHO INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY AND SO DISHONESTLY MUST BE CHECKED CANNONICALLY.
Italian bishop defends nation against Islam: ‘Equating religions is an insult to intelligence’ https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/italian-bishop-defends-nation-against-islam-equating-religions-is-an-insult-to-intelligence/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa
Bishop Suetta has not touched the issue of Vatican Council II rational and irrational, Feeneyite and Cushingite.
With Vatican Council II, rational,invisible cases of LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not physically visible exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So Vatican Council II is saying in Ad Gentes 7 that all Muslims need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation from Hell. All.
The Council also indicates that Mohammad is in Hell since he died without faith and the baptism of water.
This is the traditional and rational interpretation of Vatican Council II. This is not just my opinion. I am following the text.
So in the Catechism of the Catholic Church , CCC 847-848 ( invincible ignorance etc) will not contradict CCC 845-846 ( outside the Church no salvation).
This the post Vatican Council II Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church.
It is not Magisterial to interpret irrationally. We must not interpret invisible cases of LG 8,14.,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being objective exceptions for Ad Gentes 7. This is irrational and dishonest and it is common in the Catholic Church.
So for instance, the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Rector of the Gregorian University Rome and the Jesuits at Boston College can be checked canonically.
.-Lionel Andrades
"The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles."
That's an almighty sweep Lionel. Please share with us what every Church Father and every Apostle, verbatim and in order please, had to say about 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
Can't do it can you, Lionel?!
The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles."
Lionel
from Wikipedia
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was defined by three Church Councils. The text is there on Wikipedia. It is also available on Catholicism.org the website of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA.
Councils
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved".[25]
Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".[26]
Pope Boniface VIII's bull Unam sanctam of 1302... "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins"..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
INVISIBLE CASES IN 2025 OF LG 8,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 ARE NOT OBJECTIVE EXCEPTIONS FOR THE THREE CHURCH COUNCILS ABOVE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS. THEY ALSO DO NOT CONTRADICT THE ATHANASIUS CREED AND NEITHER THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS OF POPE PIUS IX AND NEITHER THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X. THE COUNCIL IS IN HARMONY WITH TRADITION - Lionel Andrades
TO BE APOSTOLIC POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE ATHANASIUS CREED INTERPRETED ONLY RATIONALLY
To be apostolic, Pope Francis must accept Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed interpreted rationally and not irrationally. If he cannot accept the Nicene and Apostles Creed interpreted only rationally, he should resign. If he cannot accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Creeds, which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II then he cannot hold office. This is public heresy and a scandal. Cardinals and bishops also have an obligation to accept the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms interpreted only rationally and so traditionally. They must then correct the pope. The Italian people must appeal to the pope to be honest. Salvini’s Lega must appeal to the pope to interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 as being only hypothetical and non objective cases in 1965-2025.
The president of Italy, Sergio Mattarella cannot be a Catholic when he does not interpret Magisterial Documents (Creeds etc) rationally. The Council is no more liberal. The people have a rational alternative.
The Oath of Office , Bishops ‘s Oath, Oath Against Modernism and the religious Vow of Obedience must be based upon Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. The Council then does not have any exceptions for the traditional exclusivist understanding of the Nicene , Apostles and Athanasius Creeds. These Creeds have to be interpreted rationally when there is a reference to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
The sedevacantists, Cionici, Barnhardt and Peter and Michael Dimond also interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally.They So they cannot correct the pope. – Lionel Andrades
SEDES MUST CHANGE THEIR APPROACH : POPE FRANCIS IS OBJECTIVELY NON APOSTOLIC
It is time for frustrated sedevacantists to change their approach. Simply ask Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops to interpret LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II rationally. If he interprets the Council rationally he would be opposing the liberals and the political- Left. Pope Francis would come back to Tradition. The pope will no more be in schism. So sedevacantists must affirm Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents rationally and then demand that the pope do the same. Catholics in general must make this demand.
VATICAN COUNCIL II
For me LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible cases in 1965-2025.
For Pope Francis they refer to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.
This is a big difference and must be checked canonically in individual cases.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
For me CCC 847-848 refer to hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict CCC 845-846 on outside the Church there is no salvation. For Pope Francis and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, it is the opposite.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON(1949)
The first part of this Letter supports traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the second part projects invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as mentioned in the first part of the Letter. I accept the first part and do not accept the objective error in the second part of the Letter.
Pope Francis accepts the objective error in the second part of this Letter.
REFERENCE
https://www.theeponymousflower.com/2024/10/emj-skins-trent-horn-alive-over-jewish.html?m=1
https://www.theeponymousflower.com/2024/11/father-ripperger-affirms-eens.html?m=1
https://www.theeponymousflower.com/2024/12/ismlamic-cutthroat-who-posed-as-doctor.html?m=1
https://www.theeponymousflower.com/2025/01/mohammedan-cutthroat-murders-at-least.html?m=1
https://www.theeponymousflower.com/2025/01/bishop-of-frejus-toulon-is-being.html?m=1
"every Church Father and every Apostle: is what I'm looking for Lionel. You assert but can't deliver evidence from every one of them, verbatim and in historical order.
"every Church Father and every Apostle: is what I'm looking for Lionel...
Lionel:
The Apostles, the Church Fathers and the medieval popes affirmed the teaching that outside of Jesus and the Church he founded, which was the Catholic Church only, there is no salvation from Hell. St. Augustine, St, Thomas Aquinas and the saints and popes over the centuries held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla defined by three Church Councils. Here they are-.
Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
Pope Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302
Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441)
The same teaching is there in Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, while invisible in 2025, cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not practical exceptions for these three Church Councils on EENS. . Neither do they contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation. All.
So Vatican Council II is in harmony with the apostles, the Church Fathers and the popes over the centuries on there being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church, Jesus Mystical Body.
The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was lifted by Pope Paul VI after the priest recited the Athanasius Creed.It says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. - Lionel Andrades
POPE FRANCIS MUST APOLOGISE FOR THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF FR. LEONARD FEENEY AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated when he did not say anything new. It was the CDF ( Holy Office) which projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Similarly Archbishop Lefebvre was correct when he refused to accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, whose conclusion is non traditional, heretical and schismatic. The popes accepted the new liberalism with the Council interpreted irrationally by the CDF.
Today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and Pope Francis make the same irrational mistake. Their interpretation is dishonest. Sedevacantists must not that the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Francis is not magisterial. It will be Magisterial only when he interprets the Council rationally and so traditionally, in harmony with the popes over the centuries.
When he interprets Vatican Council II rationally, sedevacantists must note, he is in continuity with the pre-1949 Magisterium.
Before 1949 they did not interpret the baptism of desire as being a visible case, a literal case, known in the present times.
If Pope Francis is not in continuity with the pre-1949 Magisterium he is in public schism on Vatican Council II etc. He still interprets the Council as a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium.
The SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, by the pope, i.e. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a physically visible case in 2025 for him. They must insist that all the cardinals, bishops and the pope interpret LG 16 as being an invisible case in 2025.
They must also ask Pope Francis to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Lefebvre. - Lionel Andrades
Fail, Lionel. You made a claim and you cannot support it with the detailed teaching of every Apostle (all 12-14 of them) and every Church Father on 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.'
I suspect that you won't deliver because you can't.
I'm looking for exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father, Lionel.
You're faking it with the vacuous ambit claims. Get serious Lionel other wise you continue to be an ongoing butt of derision.
I'm looking for exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father, Lionel...
If you are looking for exact quotes you will have to check the many Catholic websites which have apologetic material. On extra ecclesiam nulla salus I gave you the link to Wikipedia. Please do not expect me to unload long quotes in the comment section of Tancred’s blog.
Before 1949 the teachings of the Catholic Church were consistent. There was no liberalism. So the popes and saints, like the Church Fathers and Apostles were consistent. This was the Magisterium. This was the teaching authority of the Church.This was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. This Magisterium is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and so is Magisterial.
The three sources of knowledge are Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.
I follow all three. I follow the Magisterium of Vatican Council II interpreted only rationally. If the pope is not doing so (and he is not) then he is not Magisterial on Vatican Council II, like me.Before 1949 theye did not interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally, as Pope Francis does today.- Lionel Andrades
POPE FRANCIS SAYS METHODISTS WILL BE SAVED BASED UPON PETER DIMOND'S INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II : I REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION.
Francis Tells Female “Bishop” That Methodists Will Be Saved
https://endtimes.video/francis-methodists-female-bishop/
Pope Francis tells female Methodist bishop that she will be saved and Peter Dimond objects. But he says this based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and dishonestly to produce nontraditional liberalism. This is also the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Peter Dimond.
I interpret Vatican Council II rationally unlike the both of them. So the Council is orthodox, traditional and exclusivist. It has a continuity with the past which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists and other Christians are oriented to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water ( Ad Gentes 7, CCC 845,846 etc).
How can Pope Francis and Peter Dimond say they are Catholic when they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and I do not do so ?
How can they say they are Catholics when they interpret all the Catechisms irrationally and I do not do so ?
How can they say they are Catholic when they interpret the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed irrationally and I do not do so?
Pope Francis says Methodists will be saved based upon Peter Dimond's interpretation of Vatican Council II. - Lionel Andrades
Lol send your list to the email on the blog, Lionel.
vekron99@hotmail.com
You're all talk and no trousers, Lionel.
I ACCEPT THE MAGISTERIUM, SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
1. If what I am saying according to the Bible, Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is terrorist then so even the Quran, Mohammad the Islamic Tradition ( hadees) is terrorist for saying there is exclusive salvation in the Mohammadan religion.
2. If I should be sent home because of my Catholic religious beliefs then so also the Muslim police and carabinieri and their families, who follow the Quran and Sunnah.
3. There is no announcement from the Ministry of Interior, Italy saying that the Bible, Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and Creeds are terrorist and so Catholics should not quote them in churches or outside the churches in Rome.
I affirm the same Magisterial Documents as the Catholic police in Italy.
4. I accept the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, expressed in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all Magisterial Documents interpreted rationally only. Pope Francis is Magisterial only when he interprets Magisterial Documents rationally.
5. I accept the Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition. I accept Vatican Council II and interpret it rationally.
Pope Francis also accepts Vatican Council II but interprets it irrationally.
I am in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Council of Trent and the Athanasius Creed, interpreted rationally. He is not in harmony with de fide teachings and Magisterial Documents of the Catholic Church. It is the same for the cardinals and bishops. The error is objective and can be verified in public. – Lionel Andrades
Lol send your list to the email on the blog, Lionel.
Lionel:
I could send you the Syllabus for a course in Patristics.
I AM MAGISTERIAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II. POPE FRANCIS IS IRRATIONAL AND UNETHICAL AND SO NOT MAGISTERIAL : THERE IS A FALSE RUPTURE WITH THE PRE-1949 MAGISTERIUM FOR HIM BUT NOT FOR ME
I am Magisterial on Vatican Council II, Pope Francis is not. I accept the Council and interpret it rationally. Pope Francis also accepts the Council but interprets it irrationally.
The sources of knowledge in the Catholic Church, for me, are the Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition. But not for Pope Francis.
I accept the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit, in Vatican Council II, the Creeds and the Councils, interpreted only rationally. Pope Francis interprets them only irrationally and so unethically. The pope is obligated to affirm the Magisterium of the Church only then he becomes magisterial.
What I say here is in harmony with the Church Fathers as taught in Patristic courses all over the world. The Church Fathers were consistent with the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus Christ, John Henry Newman discovered, before he became a Catholic. – Lionel Andrades
SUGGESTED : PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL AT HOLY MASS IN ENGLISH FROM LIONEL ANDRADES’ APOLOGETICS
1. That Pope Francis know that Lumen Gentium 16 in Vatican Council II, refers to a person invisible and so is not an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed. Let us pray.
2. Those in Rome people in general know that the Bible, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not terrorist. Let us pray.
3. That Catholics learn that Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that all need faith and baptism for salvation. Let us pray.
4. That the Church discover that Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and not irrationally, has a continuity with the Magisterium and Missionaries of the 16th century, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
5. That people learn that the Councils, the Creeds and Catechisms say that in Heaven there are only Catholics. Let us pray.
- Lionel Andrades
What sort of Gunja are you smoking, Lionel? You're doing the Grand Circle route over and over again without providing what you have been requested: exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father on no salvation outside the Church.
Lionel, you are a great disappointment.
..exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father on no salvation outside the Church.
Lionel.
I made the time to study the Patristics before I came on Tancred's blog.It helps.
My discovery is on Vatican Council II. It can be interpreted rationally and so differently from that of everyone else. They are irrational. When it is interpreted rationally the Council then supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So when I affirm EENS I am not citing all the Apostles and Church Fathers only, as you put it, but Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
NO HELP FOR BISHOP REY FROM EDMUND MAZZA, ALEX BUGNOLO, ANN BARNHARDT AND ANDREA CIONICI
1. I interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II rationally. Pope Francis, Edmund Mazza, Ann Barnhardi, Andrea Cionici and Alex Bugnolo interpret LG 8 etc irrationally.
2. I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845-846 (outside the Church no salvation) traditionally and so also CCC 847-848 (saved in invincible ignorance). The latter (CCC 847-848) are not objective exceptions for the former in 2025. They instead interpret them irrationally. The result is liberalism which opposes the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
3. I interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q-oustide the Church no salvation) rationally with 29Q not being an objective exception for 24Q and 27 Q. For them, 29Q contradicts 24Q and 27Q.They confuse what is invisible as being visible. They make the same mistake with other Catechisms, which I avoid.They they believe Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
4. I interpret the Athanasius Creed in its original understanding, they produce ‘known exceptions’ and so change its meaning.It is the same with the Nicene and Apostles Creed. We interpret them differently when there is a reference to the baptism of desire etc.'I believe in three or more known and visible baptisms for the forgivess of sins and they exclude the baptism of water' ( Nicene Creed).
'The Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today that outside the Church there is known salvation. In the past the Holy Spirit taught the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation'(Apostles Creed)
5. I interpret the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney traditionally. They are irrational and so heretical and schismatic.
So it is no surprise that no one of them came to the defense of Bishop Dominique Rey, doctrinally and theologically. The French bishop himself interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally, like the Emmanuel religious community, to which he belongs.
Now based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, which supports liberalism and innovation, with a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they are talking of eliminating the Latin Mass completely, and no one contests this, by citing Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally. – Lionel Andrades
",,,,I made the time to study the Patristics before I came on Tancred's blog.It helps." That's not only a lame duck excuse Lionel, it's an admission of smoke and mirror voodoo. Go back to Pakistan where you are needed to spread JPII's 'New Evangelization.'
You'd be bigger gig than Imran Khan.
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A BREAK WITH THE SCHOLASTIC PERIOD FOR THE SCHOLASTICUM BUT NOT FOR ME.
Rev. Walter Covens, M. A. Theo. Is the President of the Schloasticum.Father Covens was ordained a Catholic priest on August 28, 1983, and has served as a Fidei Donum priest, as a parish Priest, university chaplain, spiritual director, and hospital chaplain, in the Diocese of Martinique, France. He has accepted his position as President of the Scholasticum institute with the permission of his ordinary. The Scholasticum it is stated is an institute for the study of Scholastic Theology and Philosophy according to the methods of Saints Thomas Aquinas, O. P., and Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, O. Minors. Covens translated into French the Italian best-seller, “Le Ratzinger code”, by Andrea Cionci (2022).
Of What good is the study of the Scholastic period or even the Patristics when they are contradicted by the New Theology created in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally.
The faulty would be in error if they interpreted Vatican Council II like the Lefebvrists or the St. Benedict Centers. Pope John Paul II interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and he was not told that there was a rational option.
This rational option is not known to the faculty of the Scholasticum:-
Dr. Pilar Herráiz Oliva, Ph. D. Philosophy
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Dr. Enrico Moro
Dr. Rosa Marulo
Dr. Christopher Cleveland
Dr. Gianluca Pilara
Dr. Francisco Romero Carrasquillo
Dr. Edmund J. Mazza
Dr. Stephanie Delmas
Dr. Wm. Christopher Hoag
Professor Alvaro Berrocal Sarnelli
Prof. Brett W. Smith
For al of them Vatican Council II is a break with St. Thomas Aquinas but not for me.
- Lionel Andrades
You have been requested to list: exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father on the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church.
You won't do the Lionel because you are both unable and incompetent to do so. Empty promises and sounding gongs, Lionel.
You have been requested to list: exact verbatim quotes from every Apostle and every Church Father on the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church.
Lionel:
You don't need to know what every Apostle and Church Father said on the teaching outside the Church, Jesus' Mystical Body, there is no salvation. Just interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally. They too are saying outside the Church there is no salvation ( AG 7, CCC 845,846 etc).This is the DISCOVERY of the last 15 years in the Catholic Church. - Lionel Andrades
FRENCH CANON LAWYERS NEEDED: NON APOSTOLIC BISHOPS
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake.The mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II and then in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Without this mistake the Council is in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It is in line with the exclusivism of the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (ecumenism of return with no known exceptions). There is no rupture with the catechisms of Pope Pius X, Trent and Baltimore. The Council supports the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
So Vatican Council II has a continuity with Tradition but the bishops of Frejus –Toulon, France, , interpret the Council as a rupture with Tradition. It is the same with the President of the Bishops Conference Italy (CEI), the Cardinal-Prefect of the Rome Vicariate and the Cardinal-Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. For them, the Council has alleged visible exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. There are objective exceptions for them, when the Catechisms affirm traditional, exclusivist EENS, with no known exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
So it is obvious that the French bishops, the cardinals at large, and the pope are irrational, dishonest, nontraditional, heretical and in schism with the Magisterium and missionaries of, for example, the 16th century. Their error is objective. Any one can check it. They are not Apostolic or Magisterial and this must be corrected canonically. They are in a rupture with the Church Fathers and the saints of the Patristic period.
I affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony with Tradition. For me there is no rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Greek Mass and the Roman Missal of the Latin Mass. I am rational and honest.
Any Canonist or Canon Lawyers Association is free to use this model (above) to ask juridical persons (Rectors, Superiors, bishops etc) to come back to the Catholic Faith of ancient Rome.
I live with the Missionaries of Charity Contemplative Brothers, near Termini, Rome. This is the community co-founded by Mother Teresa and Fr. Sebastian Vazhakhala mc. who both innocently interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally like the rest of the Church. I live at their Home for the Aged, Casa Serena. I am 70 ‘and going strong’. I am also available to answer questions at 2 p.m daily at the church San Camillio de Lellis, Salustiana, off via 20 Settembre, Rome. I cannot be contacted via the phone or Internet- Lionel Andrades
THE BLOG 1PETER5 AND EWTN CONTINUE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY: THIS IS A POLITICAL ISSUE
From the blog 1Peter5
Coming to terms with Vatican II
Fr.Michael Brownson Jan.17,2025
Dignitatis Humanae has been one of the Vatican II documents most criticized by traditionalists. The criticism focuses on the affirmation of a “natural right to religious freedom”: “the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature” (DH)
Lionel:
When the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not contradicted by Vatican Council II then the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation can be proclaimed. Membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation from Hell. So there is the necessity of the non separation of Church and State. Doctrinally, the Church returns to the time of the Papal States and the freedom they permitted for non Catholic religions-while the Catholic State and Catholic Church was not separated.
________________
That in turn throws light back on Lumen Gentium 14-17 and the Council’s seemingly rosy view about the prospect of salvation outside of the Church...
Lionel:
The writer has interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally. Lumen Gentium 14-17 can also be seen as invisible cases in 2025. So they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council has a continuity with Tradition but because of the EWTN policy, this is not being acknowledged by the editor.
Those who interpret Vatican Council II rationally are automatically affirming the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they would be labelled by the Zionists, Masons and Jewish Left as being anti semitic, fundamentalist, terrorist etc.So Catholic traditionalists continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly for political-left reasons. It is prudent .So a full return to Catholic Tradition is not possible since traditionalists too want to maintain their status quo at the cost of the Church.- Lionel Andrades
WITH THE L.A APOLOGETICS CANONISTS CAN CHALLENGE RECTORS, SUPERIORS, BISHOPS ETC.
We are at a historical period in the time of the Catholic Church, with just one move, one stroke, the whole Church comes back to Tradition. The rectors, superiors, bishops and cardinals when contacted have an obligation to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally. When the College of Cardinals intrepret Vatican Council II rationally then the next pope is expected to be a traditionalist. He is not a traditionalist according to the Lefebvrists or St. Benedict Centers or sedevacantists. Their interpretation of Vatican Council II is as irrational as that of the popes from Paul VI to Francis.
Presently with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, a Canonist can do nothing against liberal and heretical bishops . But with the Lionel Andrades Apologetics the Canonist can challenge every rector, superior and bishop to interpret the Council only rationally and so honestly and come back to Catholic tradition. They are compelled by Vatican Council II, which no more is liberal.
Pope Francis, cardinals Sarah, Muller and Burke can no more say that they accept the Athanasius Creed or the Nicene Creed.We now know there can be two interpretations of the Creeds, one rational and the other irrational. There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, rational and irrational. Their interpretation is irrational and so they are unable to check Pope Francis when he wants to eliminate the Latin Mass in the name of liberal Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally since the time of Pope Paul VI.
Any canonist , or Catholic actvist, who needs help can connect me. It is free.
Lionel Andrades
Lionel has claimed that, "The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles.".
Now Lionel, provide verbatim quotes from every Church Father and every Apostle that shows this harmony with the Council. You made the claim, now support it with detailed evidence not with a cavalier brush off which is the hallmark of a hollow boaster and a lazy mind.
Lionel has claimed that, "The Council is in harmony with the Church Fathers and the Apostles.".
Lionel:
From the website Catholicism.org
Outside the Church there is no Salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
But man, following the example of his natural father, Adam, often disobeys the authority of God. The fact that the doctrine had to be thrice defined itself proves the Church’s paternal solicitude in correcting her erring children who fall into indifferentism. The first goal of Saint Benedict Center’s doctrinal Crusade is to defend this doctrine. We present here a selection of various articles written for that end.
Here are some recommended starting points on this all-important subject:
The Popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
The Fathers of the Church on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Doctrinal Summary
Contd.
https://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
____________________________
Also see Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,1257 which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus quoted above. Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition and not a rupture.
Collegiality will not be an issue when the pope, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since they will all be orthodox and traditional. There will not be a collegiality with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, to produce a non traditional, heretical and schismatic conclusion.- Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment