When Pope Francis says that every one needs to accept Vatican Council II, it can not be with his interpretation which is non Magisterial with a fake premise.The only rational interpretation of the Council is the LA interpretation

 Pope Francis has to be asked to interpret Vatican Council II rationally for us to accept the Council and for the Council to be Magisterial.Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise has always to be rejected by Catholics.

The Council Fathers(1965) made a mistake. They assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known and objective exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II(LG 16, invincible ignorance, LG 14, baptism of desire etc).

Now we know that UR 3 refers to a hypothetical case and is not a practical exception to the old ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.There is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

So when Pope Francis says that every one needs to accept Vatican Council II, it can not be with his interpretation. The only rational interpretation of the Council is without the fake premise. It is the one I have been following for years-the L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II is rational, traditional, non heretical, non schismatic and in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict's interpretation of the Council is irrational, with the false premise,inference and conclusion.It is non traditional, heretical(rejects Athanasius Creed), schismatic( rejects 16th century Magisterial extra ecclesiam nulla salus)and not Magisterial( it has an objective error). -Lionel Andrades