In the United Kingdom the English bishops’ conference and the Latin Mass Society are both interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally to create a break with Tradition.

 

In the United Kingdom the English bishops’ conference and the Latin Mass Society are both interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally to create a break with Tradition. If they interpreted the Council rationally there would no more be exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc.

In Austria the St. Boniface Institute and the Austrian bishops and Cardinal Schonborn are doing the same.

In France the French Bishops Conference and the Ecclesia dei communities are doing the same.They all use the same irrational Premise and Inference to interpret Vatican Council II and produce a nontraditional conclusion.

For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases in the present times and so they cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They are not objective exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology.

But Pope Pius XII approved the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It assumed invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) and the baptism of desire(BOD) are visible exceptions for traditional exclusive salvation in the Church. This mistake was over looked by the Popes. Even at Vatican Council II (1965) Pope Paul VI did not interpret LG 8, LG 14; LG 16 etc as referring to invisible cases. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the same mistake. The SSPX bishops today like Pope Francis make the same mistake.

I interpret LG 8 etc as being only hypothetical. So I do not have to reject BOD and I.I. I simply do not project them as being practical exceptions for EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16 the century.- Lionel Andrades