Saturday, May 22, 2021

Clown Planet News 5.22.21


Anonymous said...

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf has written so much about the baptism of desire in a blog post today but does not state that the baptism of desire cannot be administered by oneself or anyone and that we cannot know of any one saved with the BOD in the present times (1949-2021).He does not state that invisible and unknown cases of the BOD could not have been objective exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So when the saints mentioned the BOD it did not contradict their affirmation of the strict interpretation of EENS.So it would mean that Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston was objectively wrong. The CDF made a factual error.
He also did not say that the BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance were theoretical and hypothetical only and so are not examples of known salvation outside the Church. So the Nicene Creed is not changed when it states that we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
It also means that when the Apostles Creed refers to the Holy,Catholic and Apostoic Church the Creed is saying today that outside the Church there is no known salvation and the BOD and I.I do not refer to objective cases of salvation, without faith and the baptism of water.
Fr.Z did not say that Lumen Gentium 14( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) were not objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS, as it was known to the missionaries and saints in the Middle Ages.
So it means that Vatican Council II( with LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc) do not contradict outside the Church there is no salvation as it was stated in the Athanasius Creed.
With there being alleged objective cases of the baptism of desire Fr.Z changes the meaning of the First Commandment and suggests that there is true worship outside the Catholic Church.
These are important points which he left out in his politically correct with the Left blog post.

Anonymous said...


Peter Comestor said...

In the fullness of God's mercy, beyond confected theories and constructed 'dogmas' that attempt to play God,all human beings will be welcomed into Heaven.

Anonymous said...


What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
Ir does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.

What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.

Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked? No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).

Why should Catholics use an irrational premise to interpret Magsiterial documents, including Vatican Council II, as does Fr. John Zuhlsdorf ? There is a rational choice.The conclusion is traditional.
Read Lionel's blog for more information.It is called Eucharist and Mission ( eucharistandmission ).

How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.

Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlookede by the popes.

Peter Comestor said...

Guess what, Lionel? God doesn't give two flying figs for your premises, corrupt neo-Scholastic syllogisms, EENS, has beens or whatever.
Thank God, God is God and not us.

Anonymous said...

"Why should Catholics use an irrational premise to interpret Magsiterial documents, including Vatican Council II, as does Fr. John Zuhlsdorf ? There is a rational choice. The conclusion is traditional."

This is true. But Vatican II is not Magisterial teaching. It was opened as a "pastoral" council even in the words of it's infamous originator, John XXIII. Regardless of what any priest,bishop, or clown Pope like Francis says, I don't accept VAtican II as Magisterial anything.

Speaking of Pope Francis, this asshole is going to attend the "Green New Deal" type conference on the Earth and environment in Glasgow, Scotland whenever that conference is going to be. I don't know when it is, but I just read on a site that Cardinal Turkson stated that Francis is likely to attend. Which means he'll be with all the AOC type lunatics preaching "Green New Deal" type garbage, Also he just initiated a "Laudatio Si" year. That's a pile of B.S. Who needs a pope or "church" like his vision of it? Symptom of Francis-------my archdiosecean seminary (which had 560 seminarians pre-Vatican II, was down to 150 by the end of JPII, but had a good surge up to 225 under Benedict XVI is now slated to close because they have barely 100 students). Thanks Pope Francis!! The Church is going down, but you keep on preaching your "Laudatio Si" !!

Damian M. Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

What other advantages are there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance. Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).

With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture wih past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.

Anonymous said...

Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

YES!Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

Policrates Iannou said...

More importantly, is Andronicus a cover for Spartacus?