Thursday, December 15, 2016

Beautiful Celtic Version of O Holy Night








UNPRECEDENTED!PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES DISCOVERED IN VATICAN COUNCIL II



Image result for photos of Vatican Council II

It's unprecedented.Philosophical mistakes have been discovered in Vatican Council II which was unknown or unreported over the last 50 years.It has completely changed the understanding of the Council which was always traditional.
Image result for Logo of Crux
For the liberals this will be a big blow. So media like CRUX is not reporting on it.
It means Vatican Council II had a continuity all along with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), which the main steam media calls the 'rigorist interpretation'.
The liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II could only be made with the philosophical error.This intepretation was made by assuming what is hypothetical is not hypothetical.Invisible cases were considered visible.The liberals' famous case of the catechumen who allegedly was known is really unknown.With this false premise(visible cases of the baptism of desire etc) a non traditional conclusion (there is known salvation outside the Church so the dogma has exceptions)was  created.
This non traditional and heretical conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II was rejected by the traditionalists.However it was accepted by the magisterium, the liberals and the Left.
Now when religious are asked basic philosophical questions, they can see where it is leading to and they refuse to answer, or be quoted.Similarly at the pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome there are priest -professors who continue to teach a lie.Their interpretation of Vatican Council II, is based on the philosophical error.They maintain the error even after being informed.-Lionel Andrades


DECEMBER 15, 2016

Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn unaware of many philosophical errors in Vatican Council
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/sedevacantist-bishop-donald-sanborn.html

DECEMBER 14, 2016


Catholic professors in Rome now tell lies : pontifical universities don't want to be quoted on a philosophical subject

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/there-are-objective-philosophical.html


DECEMBER 13, 2016


PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS FOR A PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY : ASK HIM ABOUT MISTAKES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/philosophical-questions-for-professor.html


DECEMBER 13, 2016


Traditionalists too unaware of major philosophical mistake : many errors in Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/traditionalists-too-unaware-of-major.html


DECEMBER 13, 2016


Too many mistakes in Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/too-many-mistakes-in-vatican-council-ii.html


DECEMBER 12, 2016


Vatican Council II riddled with philosphical error : two popes in principle support objective error in text

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/vatican-council-ii-riddled-with.html



 DECEMBER 11, 2016


The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church today is due to the following points

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/the-source-of-present-arian-like-heresy_11.html



DECEMBER 10, 2016



The present magisterium has made a major philosophical mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/the-present-magisterium-has-made-major.html



DECEMBER 11, 2016



Priest confirms philosophical error : Lefebvre excommunication a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/priest-confirms-philosophical-error.html



 DECEMBER 10, 2016



Scholars supporting four cardinals in major philosophical mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/scholars-supporting-four-cardinals-in.html



DECEMBER 1, 2016



There is a mistake in Vatican Council II and once the error is identified and avoided, the interpretation of the Council radically changes.There is no 'spirit of Vatican Council II ' excuse anymore

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/there-is-mistake-in-vatican-council-ii.html

NOVEMBER 29, 2016


So it is only by using an irrationality that the present magisterium can re-interpret magisterial documents and say Vatican Council II indicates all Jews and Muslims in Italy do not need to convert into the Catholic Church in 2016

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/so-it-only-by-using-irrationality-that.html


 NOVEMBER 28, 2016


Yet it is with this reasoning that cardinals Ratzinger,Kasper and other liberals interpret Vatican Council II. They use an irrational premise to create a non traditional and heretical conclusion.They with their executive power in the Vatican, they call it magisterial

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/yet-it-is-with-this-reasoning-that.html


Inline image 1

NOVEMBER 23, 2016



The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate have set a precedent for all religious communities.They have announced that they accept Vatican Council II without Rahnerian theology.This is extra ordinary. Since they are not denying the Council and neither are they denying Tradition

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/the-franciscan-sisters-of-immaculate.html



NOVEMBER 21, 2016



Can the SSPX accept Vatican Council II like the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate to get canonical status ? : No one tells the pope that he is interpreting Vatican Council II with bad philosophy and bad theology which has now been exposed

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/can-sspx-accept-vatican-council-ii-like.html



Inline image 1

NOVEMBER 20, 2016



When we get rid of the Rahnerian theology to interpret Vatican Council II then Catholics in general can know the importance of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation : Feast of Christ the King

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/when-we-get-rid-of-rahnerian-theology.html



NOVEMBER 14, 2016



Don Francesco Riscossa has made an objective error. Lumen Gentium 8 refers to a hypothetical case and so it is not relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which he has cited in part one of the conference.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/don-francesco-riscossa-has-made.html




NOVEMBER 13, 2016



Don Allessandro Minutella does not deny it : there is no theology in Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and an ecumenism of return, Vatican Council II is in accord with the Lefbrists and 'integralists' whom he criticizes in the video

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/frlessandro-minutella-does-not-deny-it.html



NOVEMBER 8, 2016



Today the magisterium wants the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being objective in the present times and they are not doing so.Neither would I.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/today-magisterium-wants-sspx-to-affirm.html



NOVEMBER 8, 2016



Once we avoid the new theology, with the irrational premise then the conclusion is traditional. We have the old ecclesiology and upon it we base the teaching on religious liberty, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/once-we-avoid-new-theology-with.html



NOVEMBER 8, 2016



Once you have identified the new theology and avoided it,it is possible to view Vatican Council II in the light of Tradition. We would be back to the old ecclesiology at any Mass

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/once-you-have-identified-new-theology.html

NOVEMBER 7, 2016


Pope Benedict XVI was promoting the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/pope-benedict-xvi-was-promoting.html

Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn unaware of many philosophical errors in Vatican Council

Image result for photos of Bishop Donald Sanborn
Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn is unaware of the many philosophical errors in Vatican Council II since he and Fr. Anthony Cekada make the same errors
They refuse to answer two questions.They also refer to answer if Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) can be interpreted as being invisible or invisible.
These questions could be answered even by a school boy .
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with hypothetical cases being visible or invisible.The Council Fathers in principle assumed invisible cases were visible since the error was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
Bishop Sanborn accepts the Letter and condemns Fr.Leonard Feeney.Fr.Anthony Cekada does the same. It is there on their website.So for them Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston were correct in 1949. Since for Bishop Sanborn the baptism of desire refers to a known case and so it is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So since the baptism of desire refers to an explicit case, personally known for the sedevacantist bishop, Lumen Gentium 14 is a rupture with Tradition, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.So he and the others have gone into sedevacantism.
For me Lumen Gentium 14( the case of the unknown catechumen) refers to an invisible case.So it is not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition for me.
It has been a long time that I have been pointing this out to the sedevacantists prominent on the Internet but they will not correct me or admit that they have been wrong all these years.
There is a philosophical error, an irrational reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II.
The fault is not there with the Council which can still be interpreted as with the hermeneutic of continiuity with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Bishop Sanborn has posted an article on the Internet, The Anti-Feeneyite Catechism. This article still does not respond to the what I have writtedn in my blog posts, the points raised there.He should know by now that I am not using the apologetics of the St. Benedict Centers. I speak for myself. 
Nor is there any comment to  this blog post sent to him.
  • Bishop Sanborn uses situation ethics, subjectivism and known exceptions to EENS, as a reasoning, to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.The liberals do the same 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/bishop-sanborn-uses-situation-ethics.html 
Even on Twitter the priests of his  seminary would not respond.
Fundamentally what I am saying is that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us and  so it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiiam nulla salus(EENS). So I can accept the baptism of desire (hypothetical/theoretical and physically invisible) without rejecting the strict interpretation of EENS.-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/strobert-bellarmine-and-st-augustine.html 
JUNE 27, 2016
Ecclesiology Debate: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (2004) : irrational non traditional Cushingite theology adopted
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/ecclesiology-debate-bp-donald-sanborn.html
Bishop Robert Sanborn and Dr.Robert Fastiggi are unaware of Cushing theology and irrational reasoning : at the centre of their debate is really extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/bishop-robert-sanborn-and-drrobert.html
JUNE 27, 2016
Both of them would at times refer to an EENS or a Vatican Council II which is Cushingite or Feeneyite, I could just watch the mix up,sadly.I could see through the mistake they are both making innocently
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/both-of-them-would-at-times-refer-to.html

Bishop Sanborn uses situation ethics, subjectivism and known exceptions to EENS, as a reasoning, to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.The liberals do the same
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/bishop-sanborn-uses-situation-ethics.html
_____________________________________________________________

Objective philosophical mistakes in Vatican Council II :bishops, do not respond to philosophical questions : Cardinal Pell will not answer two questions

There are objective philosophical mistakes in Vatican Council II and priests and bishops are not responding to the following philosophical questions.Even a cardinal refused to answer two questions.For priests and an auxiliary bishop of Rome it is ' a sensitive issue.'

Once this error is corrected the Catholic laity can interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Vatican Council II would be in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known in the 16th century.
Vatican Council II would be saying, without the mix up over invisible cases being visible, that there can only be an ecumenism of return.
Since there is no known salvation outside the Church there can be no Anonymous Christian theology of Fr.Karl Rahner, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Kasper and other liberals.
Since there is no known salvation outside the Church, we do not know of any one saved in another religion.Outside the Church there is no salvation. So it is important that all political legislation have as its centre the Social Reign of Christ the King.There cannot be a separation of Church and State.


1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it and is allegedly saved.Is this a hypothetical case for you?





My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.
It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.

2.
So is this case of a catechumen who is saved with the 'baptism of desire' known or unknown for you ?
He is always unknown for me. He can only be known to God if he existed.
3.
So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.
4.
Would it violate the Principle of Non Contradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?
My answer is Yes since it is being assumed that someone invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and is known.Someone who is not concrete and tangible is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.
5.
Similarly this case of an un-seen and known catechumen who is saved with the desire for the baptism of water,in the past too, would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases? Yes.It cannot be known. It is always an invisible case for us human beings.

FINAL QUESTIONS
A. Do we personally know people saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?
My answer is that we cannot see them. They are not physically visible .They are not personally known to us in our time and space.

B. Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there cannot be any known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were never exceptions.The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error.

C.So when Vatican Council II mentions this catechumen (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16),along with orthodox passages, which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, was it a mistake?
It was a mistake for me. Since these are 'zero cases' in our reality, they are not 'practical exceptions' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.I can read Vatican Council II while noting that these cases are hypothetical and theoretical only.