Pope Benedict needs to admit that there is a fundamental mistake in Vatican Council II and he was part of it, he contributed to it at Vatican Council II and in the years that followed.

It is this error, Pope Benedict needs to correct in public.Since it creates, what he calls, the hermeneutic of rupture  with the past. This error prevents a hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and Tradition in general.

Pope Benedict needs to admit that there is a fundamental mistake in Vatican Council II and he was part of it, he contributed to it at Vatican Council II and in the years that followed.

He wrongly assumed the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)  were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So Ad Gentes 7 mentions BOD and I.I with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.But they are not  exceptions.Ad Gentes 7 should not have mentioned BOD and I.I since they were not relevant to EENS.

It was  only because Fr. Joseph Ratzinger and his liberal colleagues assumed that there were physically visible cases of BOD and I.I that they were cited. They were relevant to EENS for Fr. Ratzinger.For him there were known exceptions to the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.

Similarly Lumen Gentium 16 mentioned those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and this does not contradict EENS. So LG 16 should not have been placed along side orthodox passages  which support the past ecclesiology of the Church.They are not relevant.Since they refer to invisible people. They are unknown cases in time and space. They are not examples of personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.They never ever were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake and Pope Benedict overlooked this.

Now those passages which refer to BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II are a conspicuous error and so are the variations in LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc., which are all hypothetical and not objective 'physical bodies' at the Newtonian level of matter.

It is this error, Pope Benedict needs to correct in public.Since it creates, what he calls, the hermeneutic of rupture  with the past. This error prevents a hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and Tradition in general.-Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 1, 2019

Pope Benedict should apologize before he dies. He needs to admit that he made a mistake. He wrongly assumed BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc were exceptions to EENS. Then upon this irrationality he created a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology and New Evangelisation and changed Canon Law to support the error.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/pope-benedict-should-apologize-before.html

NOVEMBER 1, 2019

Pope Francis follows Pope Benedict's error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. He needs to correct it. They both need to apologize for the mistake.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/pope-francis-follows-pope-benedicts.html

OCTOBER 31, 2019

There are no arguements to support exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/there-are-no-exceptions-to-support.html

OCTOBER 31, 2019

A Catholic can interpret Vatican Council in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors or/and he can also reject the Council since it has an objective error, which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.The error the periti made was to assume there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and then they placed 'the exceptions' in the text of the Council.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-catholic-can-interpret-vatican.html