There are philosophical errors in Vatican Council II and Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not discuss it

There is a philosophical error in Vatican Council II and Archbishop Guido Pozzo is not discussing it. It makes the Council a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known in the 16th century.When the philosophical error is side stepped, Vatican Council II emerges new and different.It is in perfect harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.

Feeneyism is the missing link.If we can put aside being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire for a moment, and then look at Vatican Council II, it is a different Council.This will be uncomfortable for those who interpreted the Council as 'a revolution' or with 'a new spirit' including Pope Francis, liberal cardinals and ecclesiastical Masonry.

Atila S.Guimaraes and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms and Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no salvation outside the Church.

Guido Pozzo is not going to correct them. Instead he says in principle Vatican Council II will not be interpreted as rupture with Tradition when he and the CDF interpret the Council with irrational Cushingism.

He will not affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism since then he would have to say that the ordinary means of salvation is 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) in the Catholic Church.
IN PRINCIPLE ERRORS IN VATICAN COUNCIL KEPT HIDDEN

He will not discuss errors made in principle in Vatican Council II.As a norm it seeps throughout the Council-text.

In principle the Vatican Council II Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible.

In principle they assumed people in Heaven are objectively visible on earth.

In principle they assumed that we can know of non Catholics on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION VIOLATED IN VATICAN COUNCIL II

In general, as a norm, the Principle of Non Contradiction was violated at Vatican Council II.

The Church, in the  text of its documents including Vatican Council II does not teach that the baptism of desire is the ordinary means of salvation.Yet this is how Guido Pozzo interprets the Council.

I cannot meet someone on the streets who will be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.

I cannot meet someone who will be saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

The Church in its magisterial documents does not teach that conscience is the ordinary means of salvation.
POPE FRANCIS AND GUIDO POZZO IN PRINCIPLE ARE WRONG

Yet this is how Vatican Council II is interpreted by Pope Francis and Mons. Guido Pozzo.In principle they are wrong.

The baptism of desire; the case of the unknown catechumen who sought the baptism of water but died before it was given to him,is always an invisible case. It was not so for the Council Fathers.They assumed this  catechumen was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it was a visible case for them.It had to be visible to be an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS.Their premise was wrong.How can there be a visible case of this catechumen being saved?
POZZO DOES NOT SAY ALL NON CATHOLICS ON THE WAY TO HELL ACCORDING TO VATICAN COUNCIL II

Mons. Guido Pozzo is not saying that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell and this is the teaching of the Catholic Church according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II.He remains politically correct with the Left and is now ready to accept the SSPX in the Church who also remain quiet on this issue.
VATICAN COUNCIL II VIOLATES BASIC LAWS OF LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING

The Council Fathers violated basic laws of logic and philosophical reasoning.

They were following the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which did away with the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The simple Letter from a cardinal put aside the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils. It was discarded by assuming the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible instead of invisible cases.This was a new precedent in the Church. An innovation in theology.It created a new doctrine which has been placed in Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
MONS.POZZO IN PRINCIPLE INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II AS A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST

Mons.Pozzo  does not state that when he (and all of us) meets a non Catholic he can know that they are on the way to Hell, not because he can judge personally, but because the Church teaches this in magisterial documents before and after Vatican Council II.

He will not say this and yet in an interview last month he said that Vatican Council II in principle is not being interpreted as a rupture with Tradition.Of course it is being interpreted as a rupture with Tradition and this is being done officially by the two popes and the CDF.
TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COUNCIL

Today there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One assumes hypothetical cases are hypothetical. The other one, like Cardinal Cushing, assumes hypothetical cases are objectively and personally known.They are not hypothetical.
POZZO, CDF KNOW ONLY THE IRRATIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL

So for me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc would refer to hypothetical cases only(first interpretation). So they would not be exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS.

For the two popes, the CDF and the traditionalists they would be exceptions to EENs,they would be visible for us cases  in 2017(second interpretation). Only because they are assumed to be visible they are exceptions.They can only be exceptions if they are visible and known, I repeat,in the present times.Someone in the future or the past cannot be an exception in the present time. 
MIX UP AT VATICAN COUNCIL II : INVISIBLE-VISIBLE, SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE

There was a mix up at Vatican Council II among what is invisible and visible, subjective and objective, implicit and explicit for Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits when they were drafting a document based on a philosophical error to create a new fantasy theology in the Catholic Church.
WHEN I MEET A NON CATHOLIC ON THE STREETS I KNOW HE IS ON THE WAY TO HELL

Yes when I meet a non Catholic I know that he or she is on the way to Hell since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says so. Also the Catechism of Pope Pius X repeats the same message.Similarly Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation.All non Catholics die without faith and baptism.Most people die without faith and baptism so the majority of people on earthy are on the way to the fires of Hell.

EXPLICIT MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH IS THE NORM ACCORDING TO VATICAN COUNCIL II ( FEENEYITE)

Explicit  membership in the Catholic Church is the norm according to Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).The baptism of desire is not the norm.The ordinary means of salvation is being incorporated into the Church as a member.However this is rejected in the theological papers of the International Theological Commission whose former President is now the Secretary of the CDF, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J.He will oversee the work of the SSPX when they have canonical status.
MAGISTERIUM CONTRADICTS VATICAN COUNCIL II(FEENEYITE)

Mons.Guido Pozzo contradicts Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) as do the two popes and the CDF Prefect.So now they must be glad that Bishop Bernard Fellay has no objection to their error.Rome has not come back to the faith, and will not come back,  as long as they use Cushingism in the interpretation of the Council.
IF THE TWO POPES AND THE WHOLE WORLD VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION THEN THEY ARE WRONG

If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong.If the popes and cardinals assume imaginary cases are physically visible in 2017 then they are all wrong.It is as simple as this.

IF FOR YOU AN INVISIBLE CASE IS PHYSICALLY VISIBLE THEN THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG.

If for you it is normal that someone saved in invincible ignorance and allegedly without the baptism of water is a known exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; the 'rigorist interpretation', then something is seriously wrong.
IF BAPTISM OF DESIRE LISTS REFER TO VISIBLE INSTEAD OF VISIBLE CASES FOR YOU THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG

If a website can cite a whole list of popes and saints citing the baptism of desire and infers that they were physically visible cases, instead of theoretical possibilities expressed with goodwill and speculation, then there is something seriously wrong.

The Principle of Non Contradiction cannot be violated irrespective of the importance of the websites or their numbers.
POZZO IS TAKING THE SSPX INTO THE CHURCH VIA THE BACK DOOR

Pozzo is taking the SSPX into the Church via the back door.He does not answer questions on Vatican Council II and issues political, meaningless statements like in principle Vatican Council II will not be accepted as a break with Tradition, when this really is the CDF official policy.-Lionel Andrades

When I meet a non Catholic on the streets I know he is on the way to Hell since the Catholic Church teaches this : this would be news for many Catholics

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/when-i-meet-non-catholic-on-street-i.html