THE VATICAN VISITATION OF THE EMMANUEL COMMUNITY IS NOT APOSTOLIC. IRRATIONAL INTERPRETATIONS PRODUCE SCHISM
THE VATICAN VISITATION OF THE EMMANUEL COMMUNITY IS NOT APOSTOLIC. IRRATIONAL INTERPRETATIONS PRODUCE SCHISM : 101 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ( UPDATED )
There should be an apostolic visitation of the diocese of Charlotte, Detroit and Fort Worth, USA and the bishops must be asked to 1) interpret Vatican Council II rationally and 2) affirm the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which no more exceptions from Vatican Council II. There is to be an apostolic visitation of the Emmanuel community. Like Bishop Dominique Rey, an active member of the community, they are not traditionalists and they also interpret the Council irrationally, like the visitors. If they interpreted the Council rationally there could not be a visitation. The visitation happens only because groups, visitors and the visited interpret the Council with the false premise which produces liberalism.
The Emmanuel community follows the New Theology of Rahner-Ratzinger and Lefebvre at Mass in French or Italian.
For the Emmanuel community, like the traditionalists, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. If the Council was not a break with Tradition, if they interpreted the Council rationally, they could ask the visitors to be apostolic and interpret the Council rationally so that the visitation remains apostolic.
Rahner, Ratzinger and Lefebvre accepted the New Theology which comes from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. It projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus:
The Vatican visitation of the Emmanuel community is not apostolic since the visitors interpret the Council irrationally producing a schismatic break with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms on the subject of outside the Church there is no salvation.
So Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally by the Vatican visitors contradicts the Creeds, in their original, magisterial, apostolic interpretation. So Vatican Council II, irrational, with exceptions for EENS is not apostolic or magisterial. The visitors from the Vatican must not enforce schism, for example, with the 16th century Magisterium in France. Neither must they produce heresy and a break with the Apostles on doctrine.
The visitation of Frejuf Toulon, France was also not apostolic. The Vatican visitors must be told that it is obligatory for them to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally since this is apostolic and magisterial. It is also ethical. There is continuity with the popes of the past. They must also accept the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS with no exceptions. They must also interpret the Nicene Creed rationally and traditionally. The must update the New Missal of Pope Paul VI to be aligned with the Athanasius Creed and other de fide teachings of the Church. With Vatican Council II rational there can only ne an ecumenism of return. The New Ecumenism, based upon Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and liberally is schism.
There must be visitations of bishops and religious communities which still interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly.
They must be told:-
1. 1. Interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally and affirm it.
2. 2. Interpret the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, without exceptions and affirm it.
-Lionel Andrades
Yes. Since Vatican Council II is no more an issue for the conservatives. The Council can only be interpreted rationally. This is the only ethical option available. It is the liberals who are in schism i.e. Cardinals Farrell, Cupich, Fernandez and Roche. The Council is no more a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. The Catechism of Pope John Paul II is in harmony with all the catechisms interpreted rationally.
99. What about Cardinal Cupich’s new appointment?
He does not accept Vatican Council II. He is a modernist. He does not interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally. This is public schism. It is a type of apostasy. He is a modernist. Why must I attend his Holy Mass in Rome when he does not end this scandal
.
If there is a table before me and I see a chair then my observation is wrong. If I mistake a window for a door then this is an error of observation. It is an objective mistake. This is not philosophy or theology. It is a physically observable mistake. It is a wrong way of physically looking at something. So if 10 people see a table and the 11th sees a chair instead, then his reality is different. It is an empirical mistake. It is a mistake in space and time.
In general people do not make this mistake. They call a chair a chair and a table a table. Observation is normal.
But in 1949 a Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston was issued from Rome. It wrongly suggested that we humans can see someone saved with the baptism of desire. But today we know that we cannot physically see someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. This person would be in Heaven and known only to God. Someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance is not physically visible on earth.
But the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) indicated that being saved with the baptism of desire is an example of salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is someone saved without faith and the baptism of water. It is an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So with a wrong observation the dogma EENS had exceptions. It was made obsolete. EENS could no more say that everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. No more- since there were allegedly known exceptions.
Now we know that physically we cannot see a baptism of desire case which is an exception for the Athanasius Creed. This Creed says all need to be Catholic for eternal salvation.
Like the Athanasius Creed, also Vatican Council II and Ad Gentes 7 state all need faith and baptism for salvation. All.
Yet the popes, make Vatican Council II LG 8, 16 etc exceptions for EENS. They assume there are exceptions for EENS. This is a wrong observation. There is a mistake in seeing.
So when the Catechism of the Catholic Church says outside the Church there is no salvation (845,846) we cannot mistake CCC 847-848 (being saved in invincible ignorance etc) as being exceptions for CCC 845-846.
So when AG 7 and LG 14 say all need faith and baptism for salvation and the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation let us call it ‘ a blue passage’. Let us underscore it with a blue pen.
When AG 7 and LG 14 refer to someone saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire, let us mark it with a red pen.
It means ‘the red passage’ is not an exception for ‘the blue passage’. In short, ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’.
The red hypothetical passages in LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 do not contradict the blue orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14.
In Vatican Council II, the blue orthodox passages dominate with there being no exceptions in the red passages.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) is saying all need faith and baptism for salvation and we know there are no physically visible exceptions in real life. We cannot see or meet a baptism of desire- case.
They are not exceptions for the Athanasius Creed.
They are not exceptions for an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So we have a Vatican Council II which is in harmony with the dogma EENS, ‘the strict interpretation’, of the dogma EENS and there could be no exceptions on earth for us human beings.
Vatican Council II tells us that outside the Church there is no salvation. This is old salvation-theology (soteriology). It is the old ecclesiocentrism. It is the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, repeated in 1965.
When Pope Leo affirms Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church he is affirming Feeneyite EENS. This is the EENS of the three Church Councils which defined EENS and did not mention any exceptions.
This is the rational way of reading Vatican Council II without the mistake in observation of the 1949 LOHO. This is the only honest choice Pope Leo has.
There is also the common irrational way of reading Vatican Council II with the mistake of the 1949 LOHO. They start with LG 8, 14, 16 etc and then claim Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is salvation. They also cite UR 3 and NA 2.
Then there is GS 22 and LG 8, ‘susbistit it’, for them. So the Council, they say, is a break with the dogma EENS.Outside the Church there is known salvation for them
Of course, they imply or assume, that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to explicit cases. Only explicit and visible cases can be exceptions for the dogma EENS in 1965-2025.
But we known that an invisible person cannot be an exception for EENS and LG 8, 14, 16 etc are always hypothetical. They exist only in our mind. Someone must exist in our reality to be an exception for EENS.
For example, if there is a box of apples and an orange in the center of that box, then that orange is an exception since it is different but also because it is there in that box at that time. If it was not there it would not be an exception.
LG 14 and LG 16 do not exist in our human reality, but this is the irrational way of reading Vatican Council II by the liberals, conservatives, traditionalists and sedevacantists. It is with the mistake of observation.This is how Wikipedia interprets Vatican Council II but so also EWTN.
So we have two conclusions.
1. Outside the Church there is no salvation with LG 16 being physically invisible
2. Outside the Church there is salvation; known salvation, in particular cases, with LG 16 being physically visible.
Ethically, the pope, cardinals and bishops can only interpret Vatican Council II rationally like me and then say outside the Church there is no salvation. LG 16 is invisible on earth in 2025 for everyone.
The irrational interpretation is not an option now that we know that we have a rational choice.
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is not liberal. The ecclesiology of the Church before and after 1965 is now the same. Vatican Council II (AG 7) tells us Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims are outside the Church and without salvation in the present times. Membership in the Church is necessary for salvation from Hell.
This is the Vatican Council II ecclesiology for Holy Mass in Latin and the vernacular. There can only be a ‘Vatican II liturgy’ with the Council interpreted rationally.The liberal-traditionalist division is not there anymore. The division depended upon the false observation.
There is now nothing in Nostra Aetate to contradict Ad Gentes 7.
There is nothing in UR 3 and GS 22 to contradict AG 7.
In real life I cannot see or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire this October in Rome. Neither can I see someone saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), with good will (GS 22) and ‘seeds of the Word’.
The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen People and I do not know of anyone who will be saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church, where the true and salvific Church, ‘ subsists’(LG 8).
I do not know of anyone who will be saved outside the Church because ‘God is not limited to the Sacraments’ (CCC 1257). The norm for salvation is ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7).
So when Pope Leo affirms Vatican Council II he is saying outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. There are no exceptions for the dogma EENS in the Council-text.
This is the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II by a pope, which is apostolic and magisterial. It is in harmony, for example, with the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.
We are back to the ecclesiology of the Jesuit saints Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Robert Bellarmine…
It means when Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally they were not apostolic and magisterial.
The Council had the hermeneutic of discontinuity with the past. It would be the same for Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.
They were apostolic and magisterial but not on Vatican Council II.
Pope Leo has to clarify that he interprets Vatican Council II rationally and then he will be apostolic and magisterial on the Council and Catechism.
It means the College of Cardinals must interpret the Council rationally before a conclave, to elect a pope, who is apostolic and magisterial.
How can you have a pope who interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally when there is a reference to the baptism of desire?
The pope must choose the rational premise (invisible people are invisible), rational inference (invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16 are not visible exceptions for the dogma EENS) and traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric with AG 7 and has a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Error of Pope Pius IX).
The Church has returned to the past. - Lionel Andrades
Continued THE SSPX AND CANCELLED PRIESTS CAN DEMAND …