If he was aware of the false premise, in future, he could reinterpret the Council in which there is no ambiguity with reference to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Steve Speray has placed a post on his website 1 and will not post my comments. He interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational inference, which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and he has accepted this hook, line and sinker. He still does not have a clue to what I am saying.-L.A

Speray:

To distinguish itself apart from all false churches, the Catholic Church teaches that it can be identified by four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

If the church under Francis I and the Second Vatican Council (Vatican 2) lack any one of the four marks, then it necessarily follows that Francis I and his church are counterfeit...

Lionel:

Now he sets out to interpret Vatican Council II assuming that UR 3 etc refer to visible and known cases in 2014-2105 and so are explicit for us. This is his false premise. Then he comes to a false conclusion. He assumed that these visible for us cases of persons in Heaven are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times. In other words they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.So he concludes that Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( The Council of Florence etc) and so goes into sedevacantism.

For me Vatican Council II is traditional and not in conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, since I did not use the false premise and do not come to a false conclusion.

Pope Francis is the pope for me.I accept whatever he says as long as it does not contradict Tradition and other popes.

At the same time I affirm the Catholic Church as being one, holy and Apostolic.

________________________________

Speray:

Vatican 2’s explanation is in line with the Protestant understanding of the profession of the Creed insofar as its teaching consists of a visibly divided Church unified in spirit only. It denies the mark of oneness as taught by the Roman Catechism and the popes and councils before the 1960’s...

The catechism makes special reference to UR3 of Vatican 2 supporting the above statement:

“It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

Of course, the Vatican 2 religion advocates that clinging and embracing its religion is best because it has the fullness of means, but it doesn’t teach that its membership is a necessary precept because non-Catholic churches have a means to salvation, just not the fullness thereof.

Lionel:

Steve Speray is referring to the common interpretation of Vatican Council(with the false premise). If he was aware of the false premise, in future, he could  reinterpret the Council in which there is no ambiguity with reference to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

-Lionel Andrades

_______________________________

Here are Catholics who do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so do not come to the false conclusion as does Steve Speray.

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links

June 21, 2014

 

Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html#links

Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links
______________________________________________


DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/irrespective-if-baptism-of-desie.html#linksImplicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links______________________________________________________________

1

Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2

http://stevensperay.wordpress.com/