Who gives Pope Francis the right to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally? How can a pope choose to interpret the Council unethically? How can a dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II be Magisterial? Pope Francis must choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally i.e. invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always invisible in 2023-2024.

 

Who gives Pope Francis the right to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally? How can a pope choose to interpret the Council unethically? How can a dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II be Magisterial? Pope Francis must choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally i.e. invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always invisible in 2023-2024.

He must not project LG 8,14,15,16,UR3,NA2, GS 22 etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional ecclesiocentism of the Catholic Church.

A pope cannot choose to interpret LG 8, 14, 15 etc as being a non-hypothetical and objective cases, when they always are hypothetical and physically invisible in the present times.

Lay people must know that an invisible case of LG 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) does not make the dogma EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), obsolete. Someone who is not there, an invisible person cannot be an exception for the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic Faith for salvation. Someone who is not there cannot be an exception.

Why does Pope Francis not affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X and that of Trent, which are not contradicted by the speculative and invisible cases, referred to in LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc?

Who gives Pope Francis the right to project LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc as being exceptions for the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal? There are no exceptions in our human reality.

How can there be a pope who is not ‘normal’ on Vatican Council II? So now there are two versions of Vatican Council II, two versions of the Nicene Creed (invisible and visible baptism of desire etc), two versions of the Athanasius Creed (with and without exceptions) and two versions of the Catechisms.

The confusion in Vatican Council II comes from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were assumed to be visible exceptions for traditional EENS. So the past ecclesiocentrism was made obsolete with this ruse. It was said that since there was known salvation outside the Catholic Church in the present time, why have Traditional Mission ? Why do people need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation when there were known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1949-1965 and later ? Why must there be a Catholic State when non Catholics are being saved outside the Church and they are known in particular cases ?

Now we need to ask : Why should Catholics accept the 1949 LOHO which was referenced by the liberals in Vatican Council II (LG 16) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and placed in the Denzinger ? The objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO does not make it Magisterial and so it should not have been inserted in the Denzinger.

Cardinals, bishops, priests and religious communities can today choose to interpret all Magisterial Documents (Creed, Councils and Catechisms) rationally-only! 

-Lionel Andrades