What if everyone else is wrong and only Lionel is correct ? What if....?

What if everyone else is wrong and only Lionel is correct?What if...?

This is the question that  Catholics are beginning to ask.They are reading these blog posts and are aware that there is no denial coming from any source.

"Could it be possible that every one was wrong all these 50 years about Vatican Council II and that this guy is now correct?"

"Has he really noticed something that the others overlooked all these years,even the popes?"

Well, to begin with, I say that I cannot physically see a baptism of desire case  in 2018.I keep repeating it. Others agree with me here.They cannot say that they can physically see someone saved outside the Church.

I keeping saying that I cannot see in the flesh someone saved in invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water in 2018.No one could have see such cases in real life in 1965 or 1949 too.People agree with me.No one issues a clarification saying I am wrong. I am saying what is common knowledge.

So the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), with or without the baptism of water, is not an objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
How can it be an exception if there are no cases in our reality ? How can invisible people be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation?

It is here where they all get stuck. They prefer not to answer.

I am not offering a new theology. I am making an objective statement,which, will show up their New Theology which says there is salvation outside the Church.
If there is salvation outside the Church what is the name of the person who has seen someone saved outside the Church?

So if there is no known salvation outside the Church then I am saying that BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and they never were. The Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake in the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).

Then it means that the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II , made a mistake when they accepted this irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Council Fathers made a philosophical mistake. It also means that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology of the Church.So we can re-interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite) despite the mistake made by the Council Fathers, the Cushingites there.

So Vatican Council II is not 'a development' with reference to EENS.This will be an earthquake theologically.

Since Vatican Council II does not contradict Feeneyite EENS there is no change in our understanding of EENS.EENS today is like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.

With BOD, BOB and I.I being implicit and not explicit,invisible and not visible,the Catechisms of Trent, Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.They are not a rupture with EENS as it was known to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.

So there is no change in the old ecclesiology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II.

This is what I have been repeating again and again over the last six or seven years and Catholics are beginning to notice.
"What if every one else is wrong and he is correct? Mama Mia!?"

-Lionel Andrades