If there is a white cat and it is mistaken for a brown dog in a conversation then the premise is wrong.
In the same way if hypothetical and
theoretical cases of Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) are
mistaken as being objective and real people in 2022 then the premise is wrong.
It is irrational. Since if there was such a case it could only be known to God.
If invisible people are seen as being visible then the premise is irrational. If invisible people are seen as just being invisible then the premise is rational.
Since if invisible cases are visible, then it is inferred that there are visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. They are practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
But if invisible cases are seen as just being invisible then it means Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible and theoretical case in 2022. It is not a practical exception for the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So our conclusion would also be different, since there are two different premises.
With the Rational Premise, LG 16 etc would not be a practical exception for the past teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So there would be no practical exceptions mentioned in the Council- text for EENS according to the missionaries in the 16th century. Vatcan Council II would have the hermeneutic of continuity and not rupture with EENS according to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.
So we have two conclusions, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is a continuity with Tradition and the other is a rupture.
The Council is still the same before us but with two different premises we have a choice.
So I interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and the cardinals and bisbops use the Irrational Premise.
For me there is no development of doctrine and there is no liberalism based upon the Council.Since the Council is traditional for me.
Even though the liberals Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Cushing and others were present at Vatican Council II( 1965), now with the Rational Premise the Council is traditional and ecclesiocentric.
Even though Pope Paul VI and the liberals at Vatican Council II chose to use the False Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, I can interpret the Council today with the Rational Premise and there is no rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
So when I interpret Vatican Council II I choose the Rational Premise but the conservative and liberal ecclesiastics choose the Irrational Premise . The liberals welcome the break with Tradition and the conservatives do not accept the break with Tradition. Major decisions were made in the Church over half a century based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. Catholics were not told that they could interpret the Council with the Rational Premise and there would be no rupture with Tradition.
Instead the Society of St. Pius X was told that they could not get canonical recognition and that the issue was doctrinal. They first had to accept the Council II with the False Premise and then they would be recognised.
Similarly the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire,. USA were also told that they had to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the False Premise. They were not willing to do so. So a Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions have been placed against them by the Diocese of Manchester,USA and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican.
The CDF is officially and in public interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise, producing heresy and schism.They interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the False Premise and then project the Non Traditional Concllusion as a rupture with St.Thomas Aquinas and St. Agustine's strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is approved by Pope Francis who also uses the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. This is unethical and not Catholic.
Traditionis Custode expects bishops to interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise and only permit the Latin Mass for those who do the same.
MAY 1, 2022
The present two popes are unethical and dishonest. This shows in the admission policy of the pontifical universities
APRIL 30, 2022
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a False Premise to create a break with the Syllabus of Errors. This is being dishonest. He needs to correct the mistake
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
Posts
