Now we have two new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years.

Now we have two new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years. This changes Vatican Council II which now has a continuity with Tradition, especially with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

I

IF WE CHOOSE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AND OTHER MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AS NOT HAVING EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION.

It is said why have Traditional Mission, why should non-Catholics convert into the Catholic Church, when there is salvation outside the Church i.e. known salvation in particular cases in the present times.

So LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are projected as ‘known people’ physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949-2023. They are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)

But LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA, 2 GS 22 etc are always physically invisible cases in 1949-2023.They are always only hypothetical cases. They exist only in our mind. They are theoretical. They are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.

So in 2023-2024 outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.

The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake and that mistake is repeated in Vatican Council II. It is also repeated in the Creeds when the baptism of desire is mentioned. It is repeated in the interpretation of the old Church Councils and the Catechisms when the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned.  We interpret these Magisterial Documents, with or without exceptions. So there are two different conclusions. If we choose to interpret them with exceptions then there is a break with Tradition (EENS etc). There is a development of doctrine and unlimited liberalism. If we choose to interpret these Magisterial Documents without exceptions, there is the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition (Athanasius Creed, EENS, and Syllabus of Errors etc).

II

THE BLUE PASSAGES HAVE A HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION AND THE RED PASSAGES ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS.

LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc can now be referred to as the hypothetical cases or the red passages. They are not objective exceptions for the orthodox (blue) passages in Vatican Council II. The red passages refer to physically invisible cases in the present times (1949 to 1965 or 2023 -2024). 

The orthodox (blue) passages are usually accompanied by the hypothetical (red) passages in Vatican Council II. 

In principle, the concept of the red passages in Vatican Council II emerges from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. The 1949 LOHO confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council ( 1215), which did not mention any exceptions.

So when the Council Fathers ( 1965) inserted LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA ,2 GS 22 etc, in the text of Vatican Council II, they were inserting 'invisible cases', which did not really contradict EENS ( with no exceptions). There could only be invisible cases. They really had no choice. But they interpreted these invisible cases as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church. This was their error.

The popes from Paul VI interpreted the red hypothetical passages as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. In other words, they were not hypothetical and invisible only. How could they be invisible for them ?  Since only physically visible cases can be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. They needed exceptions. They did not want to support Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they created their artifical exceptions. Theyimplied that what was invisible was visible and then they concluded that there were practical exceptions for EENS, mentioned in Vatican Council II.

 So they made a mistake. They interpreted 'the red passages' incorrectly. So for them, Vatican Council II made the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism, obsolete. This was how Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reasoned-wrongly.

This was how Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio reasoned wrongly on a Church Militant TV program. For them, Ad Gentes 7 contradicted itself since they interpreted 'the red passages' as being exceptions for the blue orthodox passages, which support EENS, in Ad Gentes 7.

So now, when we read Vatican Council II, we must note carefully that the red passages do not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the rest of Tradition. They are not exceptions for Traditional Mission.

So 'the blue passages' have a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and the 'the red passages ' are not exceptions.

CONCLUSION:

We can have Traditional Mission based upon there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, since Vatican Council II does not have any exceptions. Everyone needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, with no known exceptions, mentioned in the Council-text.

A Catholic State is necessary, to save souls, since the Council is saying outside the Catholic Church there is no  salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).We need  to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).

Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Magisterium over the centuries, including the missionaries in the 16th century.

-Lionel Andrades