Life Site News' official policy is to interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise be politically correct with the Left and ecclesiastics and so avoid the Cross

 

 Life Site News will report on Vatican Council II and like the liberals point out that it ia rupture with Tradition, implying it is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Lifesites implies that there are known people in 1965-2021 who have been saved outside the Church.So there are exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II(VC2). It is as if those who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire could be known.

Life Site News correspondents will not mention that the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to invisible cases for many Catholics.So for some Catholics, at least, Life Site News could acknowledge, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in the Council text are always hypothetical.Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS for them.The Council is not a rupture with Tradition.So it means that the popes from Paul VI to Francis and the traditionalists,including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara, made a mistake.

This was also a mistake of Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari.Brian McCall and Catholic Family News(CFN).CFN will not comment.There is no comment from Peter Kwasniewski or the website Whisperers of Restoration or the blog Rorate Caeili.

At CFN McCall is editing a book on the writings of Archbishop Carlo Vigano in which Vigano interprets Vatican Council II assuming LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible non Catholics saved without faith and baptism(AG 7), in 1965-2021.This is irrational. The Council has to be rupture with Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors etc) for McCall and Vigano.If a false premise is used you get a non traditional conclusion.

This pleases the popes, the ecclesiastics and the Left. This is how they interpret Vatican Council II.

The Lefebvrists, like the liberals, will not say that VC2 is not a rupture with 16th century EENS, as it was known to the missionaries of that time.They will not say that there is no 'development of doctrine' since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc can only be theoretical in the present times.This would be saying that Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre could have interpreted the Council rationally in 1965 and there would be no ‘hermemeneutic of rupture with tradition’.

But they all do not say this.

Michael Matt will criticize Pope Francis on the Remnant News but will not affirm the faith on other religions.He will say outside the Church there is no salvation but also say that there are exceptions.Bishop Barron says the same.Michael Matt means the BOD, I.I etc are physically visible exceptions.If they are invisible they could not be exceptions.

So VC 2 has to be a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors for him – but not for me.Not for other Catholics.

Steve Skojec and Louie Verrecchio also need to support their family while Bishop Schneider has to protect his reputation.

It is Life Site News official policy is to interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise be politically correct with the Left and ecclesiastics and so avoid the Cross.-Lionel Andrades