The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made an error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj should correct it, before he retires.

 

All Pope Benedict’s books were written with the False Premise. All his encyclicals and apostolic letters were not issued with him affirming the Rational Premise. He never asked new vocations to the religious life, to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise.

1.If LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2022 then the Council is traditional. Since it does not contradict the past ecclesiocentrism (EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).

2.If LG 8, etc refer to objective examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 2022, then there are objective exceptions, for the past exclusivist ecclesiology. EENS etc are obsolete.

So if the premise is invisible people are visible then the conclusion is non-traditional if the premise is invisible people are invisible in the present times then the conclusion is traditional.

It is the same Vatican Council II before us but with two different conclusions.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) made an error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj should correct it, before he retires. The CDF in the Letter assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So they were wrongly projected as practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.

The same mistake was repeated when the present Adjunct Secretary of the CDF, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia , asked Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior at the St.Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA, to reinterpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 847-848-invincible ignorance) as being visible cases and so practical exceptions for the traditional exclusivist interpretation of EENS.-Lionel Andrades