In the past year, 10 bishops in Poland have been removed from their positions and sanctioned by the Vatican, with the papal representative in the country openly acknowledging the reason – in most cases, cover-up of sexual abuse of minors by clergy.https://t.co/qOSXNAlMQA
— Crux (@Crux) August 30, 2021
A Catholic layman will represent the Church in Poland at the official opening of the synodal process leading to the 2023 synod of bishops meeting in Rome. https://t.co/VD5PUscKOb
— Catholic News Agency (@cnalive) August 30, 2021
6 comments:
The priests in my parish, like Pope Francis, are in schism with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II .They create a false rupture with Catholic Tradition ( Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc)
The priests in my parish, like Pope Francis, are in schism with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.They create a false rupture with Catholic Tradition ( Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc).With the use of the false premise, the Joselitos Christo community priests, like the Franciscans of the Immaculate ( Fr. Rosario Sammarco f.i and seminarians), who were formerly here, are denying de fide teachings of the Church.
There is no denial from them.
I have written about this before. They agree with me.
For political reasons, like Pope Francis, they have to change the meaning of the First Commandment, project exceptions for the Great Commission and make the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus obsolete with the irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire etc.They have the Catechisms contradict each other.
Then in this parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, Rome, they do not have Catechesis or First Communion classes, based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They could if they wanted to. Since Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc can only be hypothetical.They are not objective cases in 2021.Invisible people cannot be exceptions for AG 7 or EENS.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict promote the irrational and schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Church Documents.They are interpreted in a non Magisterial way with the fale premise.What is invisible is confused as being physically visible.
This is not binding on Catholics.
Since the popes would have to interpret the Council with the rational premise, create a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and then be in harmony with the past Magisterium, for these Church documents to be Magisterial.
This is schism with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis would also be heretical for the Magisterium over the centuries.
The parish priests' interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the false premise,like that of Pope Francis, is not Magisterial.Since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and promote a new teaching in the Church based upon an irrationality.
I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS
I affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021. They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also irrational and non Magisterial.
I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.I do not know of any practical exception in the present times.
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since they can only be hypothetical, always.
I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism.
Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.
In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible. I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational premise.
In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8, LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.
For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in 1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.
Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism.
These are the teachings of the Catholic Church which I affirm and the priests in the parish are unable to do the same.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, father of Catholic moral theology,says that if a priest is in public mortal sin, do not go up to receive the Eucharist. Since it would be a sin against faith and charity. He is on the way to Hell and you are telling him all is well.
The priest must end the scandal.(Teologia Moralis Bk.3, N.47)
In my parish, the priests have a problem with the Creeds, Catechisms and other Magisterial documents, just like Pope Francis.They are in public schism. So I do not go up to receive the Eucharist, at Holy Mass in Italian.
Pastorally, they allow this situation to continue. -Lionel Andrades
02.09.2021
THE VATICAN PRESS OFFICE HAS NOT DENIED WHAT IS UNDENIABLE. POPE FRANCIS IS IN SCHISM AND HIS MASS IS NOT REGULAR SINCE HE USES A FALSE PREMISE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II(LG 14) WHICH IS CONTRADICTED BY BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER.
The Vatican Press Office has not denied it. It is undeniable. Pope Francis is in schism and his Mass is not regular, since he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II(LG 14 etc) which is contradicted by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.With the false premise he changes the understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed and rejects the Athanasius Creed.His Profession of faith would be different from that of the popes over the centuries.Schism is a mortal sin.It is an impediment to offering Holy Mass.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Vatican Press Office agree with me. The pope does interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise, fake inference and non traditional and schismatic conclusion.
The CDF also like the pope confuse LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being examples of salvation outside the Church.So they become exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.We have a schismatic pope is the official line of the ecclesiastics.All the priests, and not only those of the SSPX and FSSP, have to follow him to be allowed to offer Holy Mass in the different rites.
When interviewed by TV 2000 and asked about the First Commandment, the pope could not say that there was true worship in only the Catholic Church.So for him there are other gods in other religions, through whom there is salvation.
We have a schismatic pope. It’s official and he refers to himself as the Magisterium.
At the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise.
At Abu Dhabi he interpreted Vatican Council II with a fake premise.
In Traditionis Custode and other encyclicals and apostolic letters, he interpreted Vatican Council II with a fake premise to create a fake rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.
Without the fake premise there would be no New Theology.He would have to return to EENS of the Jesuits of the 16 century and would be accused by the Left, of being rigid, fundamentalist etc.
So our non rigid, non fundamentalist but schismatic pope offers Holy Mass in this ‘irregular condition’ and has prohibited the Latin Mass for priests/communities who do not schismatically interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents(Creeds,Catechisms etc).
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
With his liberalism,based upon the false premise, he is creating division in the Church.He is not allowing the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass to be offered by those who go back to Tradition while correctly putting aside the Council when it is interpreted schismatically a la papa.
The Ecclesia Dei communties which will meet Pope Francis this month must tell him that they affirm Vatican Council II interpreted non schismatically and they expect him also to interpret the Council with the rational premise, before he offers Holy Mass.
They need to tell Pope Franics to affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and political legislation,based upon the strict interpretation of EENS, supported by Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise).
They must tell him to affirm an Ecumenism of Return to the Catholic Church, for Christian communities and churches, since Unitatis Redintigratio 3 does not contradict the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology and interpretation of EENS.
Tell the pope to affirm Traditional Mission like the Jesuits of the 16th century, since the baptism of desire (Lumen Gentium 14) and invincible ignorance (Ad Gentes 7) are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to St.Ignatius of Loyola, St.Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.
Do not let him affirm Vatican Council II schismatically and expect you to do the same.The Council is no more an issue for the traditionalists.It is the liberals who may want to reject it.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.
There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
WHEN POPE BENEDICT REFUSED TO GIVE CANONICAL RECOGNITION TO THE SSPX UNLES THEY ACCEPTED VATICAN COUNCIL SCHISMATICALLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE, IT WAS COERCION.EVEN TODAY THE TWO POPES DO NOT WANT THE WHOLE CHURCH TO INTERPRET MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS NON-SCISMATICALLY WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE.THEY WANT A HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE WITH THE PAST.
THEY WANT THE ECCLESIA DEI COMMUNITIES TO FOLLOW THE POPES SCHISMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL FOR CANONICAL RECOGNITION AND PERMISSION TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS.
If Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise there would be no liberalism.Ratzinger, Rahner,Cushing and Murray could do nothing.Now if Pope Francis interprets the Council with the rational premise the division, caused by liberalism, ends.It is the false premise which creates the liberal-conservative divide.Without the common fake premise there is no development of doctrine.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus today would be the same as the in the 16th century for Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and me.
With Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict hoped that the Society of St. Pius X would accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and also the non traditional, liberal conclusion.
It did not work out.
He announced that the SSPX problem was a doctrinal issue. They had to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, accept the non traditional conclusion and then they would not be in schism for rejecting Vatican Council II.
He did not tell them that he was in schism . Since there were two interpretations of the Council, one rational and the other irrational, if the SSPX would accept Vatican Council II with the rational premise there would be no break with the past Magisterium and Tradition.
If Pope Benedict does not confuse what is invisible as being physically visible in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, he would be Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He would be ecclesiocentric. Then much of his writings in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus , which are Christocentric only, would be non Magisterial.Since he used the false premise and so rejected the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.There was a New Theology created with the fake premise.
When Pope Benedict refused to give canonical recognition to the SSPX , unless they accepted Vatican Council II with the false premise,it was coercion.Even today the two popes and the Left do not want the SSPX , and the whole Church, to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise.
They want the Ecclesia Dei communities to follow the popes’ schismatic interpretation of the Council for canonical recognition and permission to offer the Latin Mass. This is the familiar coercion. .-Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment