So what if Vatican Council II was an ecumenical Council, Unitatis Redintigratio(UR 3) does not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine and St Francis Xavier on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. UR 3 refers to a theoretical and speculative case only. Something hoped for.It does not refer to a known Protestant saved outside the Church. There is no personally known case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church. Since a person saved as such would be in Heaven ( without Catholic faith and baptism) and would be known only to God.

So what if Vatican Council II was an ecumenical Council, Unitatis Redintigratio(UR 3) does not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine  and St Francis Xavier on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. UR 3 refers  to a theoretical and speculative case only. Something hoped for.It does not refer to a known Protestant saved outside the Church. There is no personally known case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church. Since a person saved as such would be in Heaven ( without Catholic faith and baptism) and would be known only to God.

So this was a false reasoning in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers were following a false new philosophy and theology from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. But now that the mistake is there- UR e, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc,  are mentioned(when they should not have been so), we interpret them as hypothetical cases- and they cannot be anything else- and know that they do not contradict St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuit missionaries on outside the Church there is no salvation.Invincible ignorance and the  baptism of desire were hypothetical cases in the 16th century too.So they were not exceptions to EENS for St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.EENS today is the same as in the 16th century. Vatican Council II today does not contradict the EENS of the 16th century.

-Lionel Andrades

Fr. Ratzinger messed it up at Vatican Council II. He did know that there was a tell tale mistake that would be uncovered 50 years later which would undo all the bad work at the Council and the false narrative he defended for 50 years.-

How can LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) )-even a school boy  would understand  that they are not exceptions .But this is unknown to Philip Pullella,Michael Sean Winters, Massimo Faggioli, John Allen and the Associated Press corespondents.They do not understand since they do not want to understand and accept it.The writing is on the wall.

They can see the directiion the Church will be going now after Vatican Council II. The error has been identified. Now it can be corrected.

We now know what makes the Council a rupture with Tradition  and we simply avoid it.

Cardinal Bea, John Courtney Murray, Cardinal Cushing and all the big names of the progessivist camp which were there at Vatican Council II , and which the liberal media reminded us about, blew it.They failed. THEY FAILED.We now have undone their work finally.So what if Yves Congar was there at the Council ? The Council is traditional on exclusive salvation, when the false premise  is avoided.

So what if the Jesuit Karl Rahner was there at Vatican Council II ? The Council supports Feeneyite EENS;, the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS, when LG 8 etc are seen as only hypothetical cases.They can only be hypothetical. We have no other choice.

Why should the case of the unknown catechumen who sought the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but died before receiving it and is allegedly and hypothetically saved(LG 14) be an exception to all needing to be Catholic  to avoid Hell? Who is this person? It is un unknown case. An unknown case is an objective exception to EENS?

The person does not exist.Now one saw him in Heaven.He is not there in 2019. Why should he be made relevant to 16th century EENS?

The case of the unknown catechumen will always be the case of the unknown catechumen.

Massimo Faggioli knows this. John Allen knows it.So their position on Vatican Council II is ideological. It is political. It is not magisterial. Since the Magisterium cannot make an objective mistake. Instead it is schismatic and heretical.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and traditional .It can only support an ecumenism of return and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There are no ambigous passages.

Fr. Ratzinger messed it up at Vatican Council II. He did know that there was a tell tale mistake that would be uncovered 50 years later which would undo all the bad work at the Council and the false narrative he defended for 50 years.-Lionel Andrades

When Pope Francis referred to a schism the other day he did not mention that he is already in a schisn with the Church Fathers and the popes of the Middle Ages on de fide teachings . He is in a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) , the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed , the Syllabus of Errors on EENS, the Catechism of Pope Pius X on EENS and ecumenism of return, the rational understanding of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance and the Oath Against Modernism. His interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational modernist, heretical and schismatic.

When Pope Francis referred to a schism the other day he did not mention that he is already in a schisn with the Church Fathers and the popes of the Middle Ages on de fide teachings . He is in a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) , the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed , the Syllabus of Errors on EENS, the Catechism of Pope Pius X on EENS and ecumenism of return, the rational understanding of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance and the Oath Against Modernism. His interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational modernist, heretical and schismatic.

The schism is being enforced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) and it has always been supported by Pope Benedict who wanted a hermeneutic of rupture  with Tradition.His survival depended upon it.

Meanwhile there are Leftist Anti Semitic and other laws which make  Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider  also follow the schism.They do not  speak about it. So no punitive action is taken against these obedient ecclesiastics.

Bishop Schneider and Prof. Robert Fastigii approved Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma( Baronius Press) which overlooked the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).It  has de-railed theology in the Catholic Church and has contributed  to the silent schism with the past popes.

There are two interpretation of Vatican Council II one rational an the other irrational  and the whole Church is following the irrational one because of the LOHO error.

When cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past ecclesiology it is schism.

They use a false premise and inference  to create an artificial  and superficial rupture and this is ignored by the present two popes and the Left. This is schism.

-Lionel Andrades