The era of Rahner, Ratzinger, Lefebvre, Martini and Kasper is over

 

When LG 8,LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases only in 2023 than they are not objective and visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2023. So they are not practical and physically visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope  Pius X, on outside the Church there is no salvation. So Vatican Council II no more a rupture with Tradition.An exception has to exist. The person has to be there. If someone is not there in our reality he cannot be an exception for the dogma EENS.

But the popes, cardinals and bishops and Catholics in general interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the Tradition of the Middle Ages. This is because LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Chruch. They are wrongly seen as personally known people, non Catholics, saved outside the Church in 1965-2023. What is invisible is mistaken as being visible. This was the original mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were wrongly projected as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. So Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center were criticized when the fault lay with Pope Pius XII, Archbishop Richard Cushing, the archbishop of Boston and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF/Holy Office), Vatican. 

The CDF made a public mistake, a factual error. It is a fact of life that we cannot see or meet cases of non Catholics saved with BOD and I.I. 

This was not known to the Council Fathers (1965), who repeated the mistake. They projected LG 14 (BOD) and LG 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) etc as a break with the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church. The dogma EENS was made obsolete with this error.

Now we know that this liberal and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II is obsolete. We can interpret the Council, rationally. The conclusion is traditional and in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries. 

So when Pope Francis, the cardinals and bishops and even the traditionalists, interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally (visible cases of LG 14, LG 16 etc) it is not Magisterial. It is heretical. It changes the understanding of the Creeds and Catechisms whenever BOD and I.I are mentioned.

We can now interpret Vatican Council II and all Magisterial Documents by avoiding this common error in the Church.

So the era of Rahner, Ratzinger, Lefebvre, Martini and Kasper is over. We can no more have Synods based upon the fake interpretation of the Council. 

In Mission we must ask people to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church only.Being a member of the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation ( to avoid Hell) according to Vatican Council II. In Heaven there are only Catholics (AG 7, LG 14, CCC 845, 846 etc), according to Vatican Council II. – Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________________________________  

MARCH 27, 2016

Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith

It was Cardinal Ratzinger who was in first class heresy and should have been checked by Pope John Paul II.

The CDF Prefect's excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was an injustice.

Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre ( 29 November 1905 – 25 March 1991) was a French Roman Catholic archbishop. Following a career as an Apostolic Delegate for West Africa and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, he took the lead in opposing certain changes within the Church associated with the Second Vatican Council.

In 1970, Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). In 1988, against the expressed prohibition of Pope John Paul II, he consecrated four bishops to continue his work with the SSPX. The Holy See immediately declared that he and the other bishops who had participated in the ceremony had incurred automatic excommunication under Catholic canon law. In 2009, 18 years after Lefebvre's death, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four surviving bishops at their request but not to Lefebvre, therefore his excommunication remains until today.- Wikipedia

Pope Benedict XVI ( 16 April 1927) served as Pope of the Catholic Church from 2005 until his resignation in 2013. Benedict was elected on 19 April 2005 in a papal conclave following the death ofPope John Paul II and was inaugurated on 24 April 2005.

Ordained as a priest in 1951 in his native Bavaria, Ratzinger established himself as a highly regarded university theologian by the late 1950s and was appointed a full professor in 1958. After a long career as an academic and professor of theology at several German universities, he was appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising andCardinal by Pope Paul VI in 1977, an unusual promotion for someone with little pastoral experience. In 1981, he settled in Rome when he became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one of the most importantdicasteries of the Roman Curia. From 2002 until his election as Pope, he was also Dean of the College of Cardinals, and as such, the primus inter pares among the Cardinals. Prior to becoming Pope, he was "a major figure on theVatican stage for a quarter of a century"; he had an influence "second to none when it came to setting church priorities and directions" as one of John Paul II's closest confidants.

He was originally a liberal theologian, but adopted conservative views after 1968...- Wikipedia

_______________________________________________

In 1988 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implementing the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology based on an irrationality i.e there was known salvation outside the Church. He rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with this irrationality, which was the basis of the new theology.As a theology he chose Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to EENS) instead of Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to EENS).He moved the Church away from the 16th century missionaries understanding of EENS. He had 'developed' the dogma EENS. Worse still he  now interpreted Vatican Council II with the new theology. So the Council was a break with the dogma EENS.There was a rupture with Tradition.

This means he had changed the Nicene Creed from 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, water, desire and blood.'

The Athanasian Creed was made obsolete since there was salvation outside the Church for Cardinal Ratzinger, even though he did not know of any one saved without 'faith and baptism'.Neither could any one in the past have physically seen or known any case of salvation outside the Church but this was unknown or meaningless for him.

So with this innovation brought into the Church (hypothethical cases are objective exceptions to EENS)  he rejected the defined dogma EENS, changed the Nicene Creed,  made the Athanasian Creed obsolete since it  stated outside the Church there is no salvation, he interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available and he then excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith.It was because of this heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had consecrated the four bishops.

It was Cardinal Ratzinger who was in first class heresy and he should have been checked by Pope John Paul II.

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer not to invisible cases but visible cases. This is irrational. Yet this was the Vatican Council II which was politically correct and which was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger.Archbishop Lefebvre was also using the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology and could not see an option.He also overlooked the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

AVVENIRE

Pope Benedict has now confirmed in the recent interview to Avvenire that he considers the dogma EENS developed and no more the same. This is an indication that he still is using the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology,which is based on an empirical error, an objective error, that of being able to see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.

He also approved Summorum Pontificum and wanted the SSPX to canonically enter the Church accepting Vatican Council II with the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology.  Vatican Council II would be a break with EENS and the old ecclesiology, the Nicene Creed would continue to be changed and the Athanasian Creed remain redundant.This would  be green lighting a Vatican Council II with a hermeneutic of rupture.He rejected the theology of Feeneyism, which would maintain the hermeneutic of continuity.

This was all permitted by a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).

So for the Prefect of the CDF,  Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office in 1949 did not make an objective mistake, with their known cases of the baptism of desire . Instead, for Cardinal Ratzinger, it was Fr.Leonard Feeney who was in heresy.Since he affirmed EENS .There were no persons  known to him saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. He considered this heresy.

For the priest from Boston there was no known salvation outside the Church,there  were no exceptions to the dogma EENS and this was not supported by the magisterium of Cardinal Ratzinger. 

It was Rome which was  in heresy, the magisterium was in heresy and even during Vatican Council II (1965) the popes, since Pius XII, had not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Cardinal Ratzinger did not check the heresy. Instead he supported it and tried to make Archbishop Lefebvre and then the SSPX bishops,to  also accept it.He allowed all this confusion and heresy to persist in the Catholic Church, even after he was a pope.

His pontificate supported magisterial heresy as he did as a cardinal in 1988 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated.He produced magisterial documents like Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus which were theologically  based on irrational Cushingism.

The International Theological Commission under Fr. Luiz Ladaria S.J ( now cardinal-secretary of the CDF),which was over seen by Cardinal Ratzinger as the CDF Prefect and then as pope, promoted 'a theology of religions', religious pluralism,  based on the irrationality in the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology, which he protected. 

The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the CDF Prefect, was an injustice.-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrationality. May God bless him for that

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/archbishop-lefebvre-was-correct-in.html

There being known salvation is central to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/there-being-known-salvation-is-central.html

The new theology is based upon there being salvation outside the Church. This is irrational http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-new-theology-is-based-upon-there.html

The hermeneutic method depends upon how you interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-hermenuetic-method-depends-upon-how.html

Pope Benedict, Cardinal Kasper's false arguments for Synod Report : Vatican Council II agrees with the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/pope-benedict-cardinal-kaspars-false.html

Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/archbishop-lefebvre-interpreted-vatican.html

Pope Benedict's heretical interview to Avvenire prepares Catholics to receive a sacrilegeous Synod report after Easter http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/pope-benedicts-heretical-interview-to.html

You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-can-interpret-vatican-council-ii.html

The central point of what I want to say

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-central-point-of-what-i-want-to-say.html


__________________________________

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? -Catholic Answers video : common mistake

https://youtu.be/apltTtp6Pfs

I mentioned in a previous post that 'The Remnant and Catholic Family News published a letter and a Liber of Accusation against Pope Francis entitled, “With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis” and have seen the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia  but not the subjectivism in their interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II.

Nor have they seen the subjectivity  of the two popes in salvation theology.
Presently every priest has to accept this subjectivism in salvation theology to be incardinated ; to be accepted by the Vatican. This point was omitted in the Liber.

Even the Traditional Latin Mass today is modernist,Pope Francis only permits this Mass, with  subjectivism in salvation theology.The old ecclesiology is omitted.
It is obligatory for all Catholics to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) without the baptism of water, as being not subjective but objective, seen in the flesh in 2016.'

This is the mistake also made by Catholic Answers in the video above.It is assumed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) refers to some explicit case in the present times (2016).So Catholic Answers cannot say every one with no exception; no known exception, needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member.

Since there are no practical exceptions.

There cannot be practical exceptions to the centuries-old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

In the previous post I mentioned :- 

'This subjectivism which is the foundation of the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology is being taught this semester at all Catholic universities and seminaries. Even Fr. Matthias Gaudron, of the SSPX in Germany, who was critical of the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia, does not oppose this subjectivism in the interpretation of the new salvation theology.

The irrationality is  taught by Fr. Jean Marie Gleize at the SSPX seminary in Econe,Switzerland.It is the same at other SSPX seminaries.Yet Chris Ferrara often says that the SSPX is not teaching anything new.The SSPX is allegedly not saying anything new?!

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre approved this error and did not know it was responsible for the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition in Vatican Council II.

Without this subjectivism in the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology Vatican Council II can be interpreted as not being a break with Quanta Cura.The Council is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.The Council is Feeneyite ( theology which says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) and traditional.'

Even Catholic Answers is not aware that without this subjectivism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted in harmony with 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The blog post stated :

'So the Liber does not tell Pope Francis that Vatican Council II can  be interpreted without his wrongly assuming we can subjectively discern a BOD case in 2016.

'It does not say that we can re- nterpret LG 16, LG 8, etc  as not by being explicit and personally known, since they can only be personally known to God and not to us humans.

Vatican Council II will then be in harmony with the  dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries  and not according  to Pope Benedict XVI.Since there are no 'practical exceptions', (a phrase used by Chris Ferrara) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

For Catholic Answers the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation is in harmony with Pope Benedict and Pope Francis since there are alleged exceptions. It is a rupture with the 16th century missionaries who did not claim there are exceptions.Catholic Answers could not tell the Protestant that he was on the way to Hell.Since for Catholic Answers there are known exceptions. Without the subjectivism error, of Catholic Answers, the Protestant who called in could have been directly told that he was on the way to Hell, unless he formally converted into the Catholic Church.

The blog post states:

'Ferrara is saying that there are no 'practical exceptions' to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. However he is still not saying that there are no practical exceptions  in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The Liber does not mention this.This is a very important point which he left out.'

The Liber also does not mention that Catholic Answers and so many Catholic organisations and apologists are confused on this issue. Explaining salvation in the Catholic Church has become complicated because of the political priorities which hide the truth.

The post stated:

It may be said that the issue of Fr.Leonard Feeney is of the past, an injustice was done to him for being faithful to the teachings of the Church.However the Liber does not say that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case determines how Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II today.He assumes there are practical exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.So theologically he de-rails Vatican Council II with the past, with the popes and saints on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For me there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the two popes are wrong and so are the SSPX bishops.'

Even Catholic Answers is wrong. 

 SSPX CANONICAL REQUIREMENT

This is an important issue since the canonical requirement for the SSPX is that they accept Vatican Council II with 'practical exceptions'.They need to point out this error to the Vatican.Vatican Council II can be acceopted also as having not practical exceptions to the old ecclesiology. There are no practical exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II(Feeneyite). The ecclesiology is traditional without the Rahner-Ratzinger theology.

They need to point out the error to Catholic Answers.
FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE

The regularisation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate also depends on their accepting the Rahner-Ratzinger new doctrines on salvation,based on 'practical exceptions' to EENS.Pope Francis   was not asked to correct his error.

They are also using the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology as is Catholic Answers above.
SEDEVACANTISTS

Vatican Council II with this error, is the reason for the sedevacantists ( MHFM etc) being sedevacantists during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.They do not know that the baptism of desire refers to imaginary cases and so never were relevant to EENS.This is a mistake of the Vatican Curia too.It was important for the liber to have clarified this point.The problem again is subjectivism in salvation theology.

Catholics Answers criticizes the sedevacantists and Radical Traditionalists but all of them use the new theology based on irrational subjectivism.

-Lionel Andrades

SUNDAY, MARCH 20, 2016

Rahner's Anonymous Christian is main line Catholic theology : coming back full circle

When Fr.Karl Rahner S.J created the term Anonymous Christian he had accepted that there was salvation outside the Church.So did the Fr.Ratzinger of that time.

So with the new theology they said all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.They were no more saying everyone needs to be a member of the Church for salvation.They had rejected a defined dogma.

Now when Pope Benedict seems to criticize Rahner's Anonymous Christian, he has traditionalists fooled.They actually believe him.CMTV,Fr.Z, Tancred...

For Rahner and Ratzinger there was salvation outside the Church because
1)  they could allegedly see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water,
2)  hypothetical cases were now known exceptions  to EENS,
3) and the Baltimore Catechism said the desire for the baptism of water was a baptism like the baptism of water. Or, the Holy Office 1949 had accepted, according to Rahner and Ratzinger:
1) hypothetical cases are known exceptions to EENS,
2) the baptism of desire was a baptism like the baptism of water,
3) there is known salvation outside the Church
4) and  Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center, the popes and saints of the past were all wrong.
Pope Pius XII and the subsequent popes really agreed with them. They could not support Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.

So then Rahner-Ratzinger and the others created the new theology based on salvation outside the Church.
Those who accepted the new theology were made members of the  International Theological Commission, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or Ecclesia Dei.
The sedevacantists and traditionalists also accepted the new theology.There was salvation outside the Church for them.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were known exceptions to EENS.There was now a development of doctrine.

The Vatican's International Theological Commission and the Catechism of the Catholic Church explained the new theology.It was based on known salvation outside the Church.
The St.Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA rejected there being salvation outside the Church.
How could the popes and saints be wrong all these years they asked ? They were supported by many traditionalists.
For the St.Benedict Center 1) the Baltimore Catechism was wrong and 2) the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) was also wrong.There could not be salvation outside the Church.
But then they rejected Lumen Gentium  16 and Vatican Council II.It was a break with EENS they thought .They did not realise LG 16 was a hypothetical case.

So in the rejection of LG 16 the St.Benedict Center and  the SSPX ,both traditionalists, were now saying that they could know or see people in Heaven, saved with or without the baptism of water.Or that they knew people on earth who would be saved with or without the baptism of water.For the SBC it was the baptism of desire with the baptism of water for many supporters of the SSPX it was without the baptism of water.The SSPX position was the same as the liberals.

The Vatican Curia, the magisterium, used the same reasoning but they were open to Vatican Council II.
In a sense the whole Church was now using this irrational theology.
This was mainline, except for some Catholics, may be many, who asked where are these so-called exceptions? What are their names, where do they live?
They were suppressed. Threatened.
But then reports began appearing on the Internet.They asked if the SSPX, Franciscans of the Immaculate and the St.Benedict Centers could interpret LG 16 as referring to :
1) unknown persons,
2) theoretical and speculative cases,
3)  known only to God 
4) followed by the baptism of water since this was the dogmatic teaching of EENS 
5) and not explicit exceptions to EENS.
Was this possible?
Many Catholic priests in Rome answered with a clear "YES".
This means Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as the 16th century missionaries interpreted the dogma.
The Ratzinger-Rahner theology had an alternative.There was a rational option.Without the irrationality the ecclesiology was once again traditional.There was a new possibility open in the SSPX-Vatican dialogue. The scenario had changed.The old theology was still an option.
The new theology is set aside.It is meaningless.
There is no development.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church.

Rahner and Ratzinger's work was in vain.Theological straw.
We are back to the teaching which Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center defended so well.
The two popes know this.

-Lionel Andrades

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

There are no 'practical exceptions' in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

The Remnant and Catholic Family News published a letter and a Liber of Accusation against Pope Francis entitled, “With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis” and have seen the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia  but not the subjectivism in their interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II.

Nor have they seen the subjectivity  of the two popes in salvation theology.
Presently every priest has to accept this subjectivism in salvation theology to be incardinated ; to be accepted by the Vatican. This point was omitted in the Liber.

Even the Traditional Latin Mass today is modernist,Pope Francis only permits this Mass, with  subjectivism in salvation theology.The old ecclesiology is omitted.
It is obligatory for all Catholics to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) without the baptism of water, as being not subjective but objective, seen in the flesh in 2016.

This subjectivism which is the foundation of the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology is being taught this semester at all Catholic universities and seminaries. Even Fr. Matthias Gaudron, of the SSPX in Germany, who was critical of the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia, does not oppose this subjectivism in the interpretation of the new salvation theology.

The irrationality is  taught by Fr. Jean Marie Gleize at the SSPX seminary in Econe,Switzerland.It is the same at other SSPX seminaries.Yet Chris Ferrara often says that the SSPX is not teaching anything new.The SSPX is allegedly not saying anything new?!

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre approved this error and did not know it was responsible for the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition in Vatican Council II.

Without this subjectivism in the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology Vatican Council II can be interpreted as not being a break with Quanta Cura.The Council is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.The Council is Feeneyite ( theology which says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) and traditional.

So the Liber does not tell Pope Francis that Vatican Council II can  be interpreted without his wrongly assuming we can subjectively discern a BOD case in 2016.

It does not say that we can re- nterpret LG 16, LG 8, etc  as not by being explicit and personally known, since they can only be personally known to God and not to us humans.

Vatican Council II will then be in harmony with the  dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries  and not according  to Pope Benedict XVI.Since there are no 'practical exceptions', (a phrase used by Chris Ferrara) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ferrara is saying that there are no 'practical exceptions' to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. However he is still not saying that there are no practical exceptions  in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The Liber does not mention this.This is a very important point which he left out.

It may be said that the issue of Fr.Leonard Feeney is of the past, an injustice was done to him for being faithful to the teachings of the Church.However the Liber does not say that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case determines how Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II today.He assumes there are practical exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.So theologically he de-rails Vatican Council II with the past, with the popes and saints on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For me there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the two popes are wrong and so are the SSPX bishops.
 

 SSPX CANONICAL REQUIREMENT

This is an important issue since the canonical requirement for the SSPX is that they accept Vatican Council II with 'practical exceptions'.They need to point out this error to the Vatican.Vatican Council II can be acceopted also as having not practical exceptions to the old ecclesiology. There are no practical exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II(Feeneyite). The ecclesiology is traditional without the Rahner-Ratzinger theology.

FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE

The regularisation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate also depends on their accepting the Rahner-Ratzinger new doctrines on salvation, based on 'practical exceptions' to EENS.Pope Francis   was not asked to correct his error.

SEDEVACANTISTS

Vatican Council II with this error, is the reason for the sedevacantists ( MHFM etc) being sedevacantists during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.They do not know that the baptism of desire refers to imaginary cases and so never were relevant to EENS.This is a mistake of the Vatican Curia too.It was important for the liber to have clarified this point.The problem again is subjectivism in salvation theology.

-Lionel Andrades