The CDF is 'the Church' but Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise is also 'the Church' and the CDF does not affirm it.The Church of the ecclesiastics rejects 'the Church' of Magisterial documents

The CDF is 'the Church' but Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise is also 'the Church' and the CDF does not affirm it.CDF rejects 'the Church'.

Similarly the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)  can be interpreted as referring to hypothetical cases. This is how it was interpreted over the centuries and how it can be interpreted today in 2018. This is 'the Church'.But the CDF, 'the Church of the ecclesiastics at the Vatican' does not affirm, Vatican Council II without the false premise which is in harmony with Tradition and is also 'the Church'.

So I affirm Feeneyite EENS which is 'the Church' for me.

For me Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and his position on EENS with invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I is magisterial for me.

Similarly I affirm Vatican Council II with LG 8 etc as referring to hypothetical cases only. This is rational. So there is no rupture with traditional EENS. This interpretation of Vatican Council II is 'the Church' for me.

I affirm EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century which is not a rupture with Vatican Council II, interpreted with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical. So I affirm 'the Church' of magisterial documents interpreted rationally and traditionally and I reject 'the Church' of the CDF and the present two popes, which interpret EENS, BOD, BOB and I.I and Vatican Council II irrationally.They are in schism with the past popes, 'the Church' over the centuries.There are no visible BOD, BOB and I.I cases as they infer.

So the perennial Church, the perennial magisterium of the Church has not changed for me with Vatican Council II . Since I avoid the false interpretation of the present ecclesiastics at the Vatican.On this issue, Pope Francis,Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria do not represent 'the Church' . They are expressing their personal theology based on bad philosophy.

So it cannot be said that I am denying EENS or Vatican Council II.Neither can it be said that I am denying BOD, BOB and I.I. Things couldn't be better. I can have my cake and eat it too. I do not have to choose between EENS and BOD etc. I do not have to choose between Vatican Council II and EENS.

I can reject the new ecumenism( since there is no known salvation outside the Church for me)  and affirm an ecumenism of return without rejecting Vatican Council II.

I can affirm outside the Church there is no salvation along with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) and Vatican Council II.It is not the Syllabus of Errors  or Vatican Council II for me, as it is for Pope Benedict, Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Guido Pozzo and others.

Everything has come into place and there are no loose ends since I did not make the mistake of 'the Church of the ecclesiastics' on BOD, BOB and I.I.For me they are hypothetical and not objective. Similarly the hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II and the Catechisms are simply hypothetical.

So there is no new ecclesiology for me. The 'past  ecclesiology' of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same.There is no past and present ecclesiology. It is the same centuries-old ecclesiology  with the Catholic Church having the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.

There is no New Evangelisation for me since most people are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II(AG 7) .They die without faith and baptism which is needed for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).Knowing this is  still the mission- motivation for me.There is the need to proclaim the Faith, which does not change.-Lionel Andrades