Wednesday, November 11, 2015

So many passages in Vatican Council II should not have been there :they are a mix up of what is explicit and implict,invisible and visible

Louie Verrecchio 1 continues to analyse Vatican Council II as only a struggle between the conservatives( Catholics) and the progressivists ( heretics, Masons). Of course this was there.
The conservatives however were at a disadvantage since they did not know about the error during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It was upon this error that the progressivists depended upon .
So much of the text of Vatican Council II which they got through is based on the 1949 mix up between what is implicit and explicit, objective and subjective, visible and invisible.
 In the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office the Magisterium did not know that the baptism of desire (BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB) had nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). They made a mistake.They assumed BOD and BOB were explicit cases and so were objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Related image
The progressivists like Cardinal Richard Cushing enforced the error in the Archdiocese of Boston and then along with Fr.John Courtney Murray and the other Jesuits, placed it in Vatican Council II in so many places (some are cited below).
They had already condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney with the support of the Holy Office in Rome. The excommunication of Fr. Feeney was not lifted in 1965. It seems as if there was no opposition to the Boston error, which was Cushingism. It was made by Archbishop Cushing and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.
In 1949 the Masons were successful in eliminating the dogma EENS and were successful again at Vatican Council II. The confusion is all over the Council as invisible for us cases are cited as if they are defacto and objective. Hypothetical cases were made relevant to EENS.
Related image
Even Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of this  error in thinking. An irrational reasoning. The Society of St. Pius X supported the error and still continues to do so. They began to defend it. They now say that St. Emerentiana  was saved without the baptism of water. As if someone could see her in Heaven as such!
The conservatives at Vatican Council allowed this error , of there being known cases in Heaven without the baptism of water, to  get through. In other words there was known salvation outside the Church for them too.
Here are some passages which should not have been placed in Vatican Council II.They refer to speculative, hypothetical persons known only to God.
Related image

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

...many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. -Lumen Gentium 8

...nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. -Nostra Aetate 2


Doctrine was changed clearly in 1949 with reference to the dogma EENS and the change is seen in these  texts in Vatican Council II ( quoted above).

The speculative texts were placed alongside  the orthodox texts.They should not have been included in the first place,   since they refer to invisible cases for us humans. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages on salvation. They are not even relevant.

For instance all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7) is not contradicted by those who  know or do not know about the Church. Since this category of people would only be known to God. They could not say that any particular person in 1949 did not know about Jesus and the Church and would be saved. They did not know any case of salvation outside the Church.
However in 1949 it was assumed that these cases were exceptions to the dogma.Vatican Council II suggests only 'those who know' need to enter the Church for salvation.For the Council Fathers  'those who know' refer to known persons who are relevant to the dogma.

I accept Vatican Council II but someone else could reject the Council saying  Vatican Council II made an objective mistake, since it has the above passages.These passages refer to speculative cases, and are not related to the connecting orthodox passages in the Council.

For example A is the orthodox passage and B is the speculative passage.


Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a doorTherefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him......- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Orthodox and speculative passages are placed together in Vatican Council II because of the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter issued by Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was also approved by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and the Council Fathers. They included Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Letter suggests unknown people in Heaven are known on earth. Similarly Ad Gentes 7 above allows Catholics to infer that there are persons inculpably ignorant of the Gospel who are known and seen on earth in 2015 ( as in 1949 and 1965) and who are explicit exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 (A)

Once we have identified this error i.e BOD is invisible instead of visible, we can read the superfluous passages mentioned above as being possibilities only.They are theoretical and hypothetical only. They would also be followed with the baptism of water, since this is the centuries old dogmatic teaching of the Church.
So we then have a different way of analysing Vatican Council II as comparied to Louie Verrecchio, Michael Voris, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,  the SSPX and the sedevacantists who are mixing up what is unknown as being known and then creating a new theology upon this factual error.
-Lionel Andrades
1 The Conciliar Creed of the Church of Man

Sedevacantist will still not answer if LG 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015 - 2


Introibo Ad Altare Dei   November 9, 2015 
Lionel: The baptism of water is always explicit. EENS refers to all needing explicit baptism of water in the present times.If there is an exception the exception would also have to be explicit.
Introibo: We can see people baptized in water, but we don't know if that will ultimately avail them unto salvation.
Lionel: I am referring to the baptism of water being explicit and known and the baptism of desire being invisible and unknown.He is talking about salvation.
We know that St. Victor is in Heaven because of BOB by Faith in the infallible teaching of the Church--the same infallibility I will demonstrate that you deny. If the Church declares someone is in Heaven by BOB that's pretty "explicit" for a Catholic!
Lionel: Who in the Church could see someone in Heaven without the baptism of water? Who is this person in the Church who was gifted with this ability and made an announcement on St. Emerentiana? Does the Church recognise him and his gift ?

Lionel: I believe the Extra ordinary Magisterium is infallible ( ex cathedra).
The ordinary magisterium is subject to human error. To infer BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS is an error of the ordinary Magisterium.
Introibo: Lionel has, by this statement, proven himself a heretic who denies the Indefectibility of the Church. Furthermore, The First Vatican Council infallibly taught: " Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things are to be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in Her Ordinary and Universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." (See DENZ. 1792)
Related image
It does not say here, specifically, that I have to believe that BOD is explicit and so relevant and an exception to the dogma.
It does not say that three Church Councils which gave us the dogma EENS and did not mention BOD were in heresy....

You DENY this infallible teaching and limit the Church's infallibility to ex cathedra teachings. Ironically, you deny THIS infallible ex cathedra teaching!
According to theologian Van Noort:
"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115) Therefore all of what the Church legislates with papal approval is infallible; it cannot be evil or in error.
Lionel: Yes before 1808. However an objective error was made by the Magisterium in 1949. This happened when it assumed that BOD etc referred to known cases.So they became relevant and exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.
They were criticised for not saying that BOD etc referred to objective cases for them to relevant, in other words the Magisterium in 1949 wanted Fr. Leonard Feeney to say that he could see and know BOD cases for them to be exceptions to his traditional interpretation of EENS.
According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4)
Therefore, when the universal and ordinary Magisterium approves the Catechism of Trent (promulgated by St. Pius V) or The Catechism of St. Pius X (promulgated by that same saintly pontiff) teaches BOD and BOB, they are infallibly true. You deny this because you are a Feeneyite heretic.
'teaches BOD and BOB, they are infallibly true'.
I accept BOD and BOB even though it is not an infallible teaching. The dogma is an infallible teaching.The dogma is de fide.However I make the distinction between explicit and implicit for us  BOD and you do not.I accept theoretical BOD as a possibility.I reject BOD as being explicit.You wil not make a comment on this either way.
Lionel: The catechisms, reflect the Ordinary Magisterium.The human error is there with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This could be the influence of political or other lobbies.
Introibo: So "political or other lobbies" can outsmart or overcome the protective power of the Holy Ghost? Really???
Related image

Are you not a sedevacantist who believes the popes and their catechisms and Vatican Council II is in error?
I include Pope Pius XII in this error but you excluded him  and consider the other popes in error.The sedes and trads are also making the same error as the popes since Pius XII but they are not aware of it. The error was there in 1808 but it became well known and official in 1949.


Lionel:For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1992) refers to an 'aphorism' outside the Church there is no salvation.It does not refer to a dogma(CCC 846). The Catechism(1992) does not cite the text of the dogma defined by three Church Councils. Instead it implies that BOD and BOB are relevant as an 'aphorism'.
Introibo: This, dear Lionel, is EXACTLY why I'm a sedevacantist.
I am not a sedevacantist  since this  specific error can be corrected.

Major premise: The Church cannot teach error.

The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. We humans can.
Minor premise: The Vatican II sect Catechism teaches numerous errors.
Lionel: The major one is shared by the sedes and trads.It can be re-interpreted and avoided in future. The present inference is irrational. We can avoid this inference.The same text then becomes rational.

Conclusion: The 1992 catechism did NOT come from the Catholic Church but from men who lost their office through the profession of heresy as the Church has always taught.

The traditional teachings in the Catechism ( 1992) are also those of the Council of Trent. They are inspired teachings.
There is one oversight which has come from human error and the sedes and trads are still not aware of it. The SSPX is still not aware of it.

I'm a catholic. You are a member of the Vatican II sect.

This is your opinion. I am a Catholic and you and 'the Vatican II Sect'( Magisterium/ liberals) are making the same error.
Lionel: Lionel Andrades is affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church in harmony with Vatican Council II. This is a Vatican Council II interpreted without an irrational premise and inference.For him there is no pre and post Vatican Council II conflict. There is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.There are no new doctrines proposed. There is no new innovation accepted.So where is the irrationality and heresy?
Here is the irrationality and heresy:
You claim to believe ex cathedra teaching, yet deny the ex cathedra teaching of the First Vatican Council which affirms the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.Lionel:
The infallible teaching did not mention any exceptions. It did not mention BOD. Check the text of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.

You claim a heretic can be pope and catechisms promulgated by the pope can teach error.
This was the heresy and error during the pontificate of Pius XII. You accept this pontificate and the error.While you reject the popes who follow, not realizing that they are making the same error as  Pius XII.


Please cite ONE pre-vatican II council, theologian, or papal decree that teaches these errors.
I have mentioned in these blog posts many times, and also in our discussion,  that the error came into the Church in 1808 with the Baltimore Catechism it was enforced in 1949 at Boston and then included in Vatican Council II (AG 7 etc)

You can't. You never cite to any authority because Lionel Andrades, like Leonard Feeney are their own authority unto themselves.

 I have cited specific references.
Lionel: Pope Francis is still the pope, for me.
Introibo: And that is why you are outside the Church--like him.
I follow the traditional teachings of the Church which do not change with the popes. I follow the pre-1808 Magisterium and reject the errors of the post 1808 Magisterium on salvation,specifically, the dogma on salvation. You accept the 1949 error of the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII and consider him within the Church, and the popes who follow, for you as a sede, are outside the Church.When really you are not aware of the irrationality you are using in the intepretation of magisterial documents.

 In objective reality he cannot be pope, as he is a heretic, like you.
He is in heresy due to a common oversight on doctrine.You are making the same mistake. I too, at one time made the same mistake.I am referring specifically to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If he teaches something new, or heresy on another subject I do not have to accept it or teach it.

 What's the point of having a pope who teaches all kinds of things and you never know what's true or not unless ex cathedra. Frankie will tell you that proselytism is nonsense and atheists can go to Heaven.
I understand what you feel. However inspite of the errors and confusion I choose to accept Pope Francis as pope.

 YOU pick and choose what to accept and reject just like the pseudo-traditionalists SSPX.
Is it not the same as the SSPX for you when LG 16 is explicit and visible for you? Is not St. Emerentiana an explicit exception to the dogma EENS in 2015 for you? Why do you keep mentioning her ?

 Please convert my friend.
Doctrinally I am not teaching anything new. I am following Tradition. Doctrinally you are mixing up what is implicit as being implict. With the visible-invisible confusion you have accepted  the new doctrine on salvation.It is suported by the liberals and the Vatican Curia. The result is : an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.The  Vatican Curia accepts it  and you reject it .
Due to this irrational interpretation of the Council,you have gone into sedevacantism.
For me the Council is not a break with the past, so this is not a reason for me to be a sede.

 I hope all this typing has not been in vain! I'll be praying for your conversion.
It will be helpful in this dialogue if you would let us know if LG 16 is explicit or implicit and if it is ( or can be) an explicit exception,  to the dogma EENS. Is it relevant to EENS or did the Magisterium in 1949 make an objective mistake?
-Lionel Andrades

Sedevacantist will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015