THE SYNOD STUDY GROUP REPORTS ARE OBSOLETE : THEY ARE BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED IRRATIONALLY
THE SYNOD STUDY GROUP REPORTS ARE OBSOLETE : THEY ARE BASED UPON VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED IRRATIONALLY
The Italian Government and its ministries must switch to the Lionel Andrades (LA) interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is rational and ethical .The reports and conferences on Vatican Council II by Rai TV, TV 2000, daily Avvenire and Ill Messaggero, are all with the fake premise. What is invisible (LG 14, 16) is confused as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II the Council is in harmony with all the catechisms. There is no rupture with the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. There is only one - and not two interpretations of the Nicene and Apostles Creed. The Church returns to the faith and morals of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. The tilt is toward Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston and not Richard Cushing, the archbishop in 1949.
The L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II emerged with an insight. It was the discovery that LG 8, 14 16 etc in Vatican Council II were always hypothetical. So they could not be objective exceptions for the dogma EENS. Invisible people cannot be exceptions. So EENS had no practical exceptions in Vatican Council II. The Council did not mention any exceptions for Tradition. The Council has a continuity with the past. It was aligned with Aquinas and Augustine on EENS.
When what is invisible is seen rationally as being invisible then Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. But when what is invisible is seen irrationally as being visible, Vatican Council II is Cushingite.
So the Council can be rational or irrational, Feeneyite or Cushingite. It depends upon our choice. We decide if we want the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition.It is like turning a light switch on or off at will.
So Pope Pius XII chose the hermeneutic of discontinuity in 1949 and Pope Paul VI did the same in 1965.So the direction of the Church was liberal and not traditional. The traditional direction was changed simply by confusing what is invisible as being visible.
Now the Church can immediately go back to Tradition by choosing the rational option. It is also ethical. This choice runs through the Church like a theme. The Synods have their theological foundation on Vatican Council II, irrational and Cushingite while the Roman Missal is Feeneyite and aligned with Vatican Council II, rational only.
With the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council the Tradition of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is schismatic. With the irrational interpretation of the Council, the Arlington Discalced Carmelite Sisters and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in New Hampshire are in schism.
With the rational, Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez is in schism. He is in schism with the popes over the centuries. He is in schism with the Athanasius Creed which he presently does not affirm with no exceptions. He is also Cushingite and not Feeneyite on the dogma EENS. This is heretical and schismatic.
It is Bishop Michael Olsen, the bishop of Fort Worth, Texas who needs to recant or be laicized for schism and not the traditionalists. The Council interpreted rationally supports the traditionalists.
We have identified the error- the false premise- which is responsible for the common liberalism. We can now correct the mistake of Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar, Congar, Lubac, Guarini, Lehmann, Kung, Lefebvre and Ottaviani. They were all using the false premise (invisible people are visible) which came from the 1949 LOHO. It was an objective mistake, a public mistake made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Office) in 1949.It was repeated in 1965 and there was no correction when the Catechism of the Catholic Church was issued.
So the Italian Government and the Vatican, can set the record straight by simply announcing that ‘LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical cases only. So LG 14 and 16 are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church in 2025-2026.Neither are they objective exceptions for the dogma EENS. The Athanasius Creed is no more obsolete.’
So the College of Cardinals, morally, must only interpret Vatican Council II rationally and then elect a pope, who does the same. Pope Leo must align Vatican Council II with St. Augustine’s exclusivist ecclesiology.
The German synodal bishops and Cardinals Hollerich and Grech can no more support liberalism at the Synods in the name of Vatican Council II irrational.
The reports of the study groups, awaiting the January Consistory are now obsolete. They are based upon the Council interpreted irrationally. It was the same for Pope Francis’ Amoris Laeititia, Traditionis Custode and Fiducia Suplicans.
With the L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II the Church returns to the doctrines of historical Italy and Europe.-
Lionel Andrades