The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is the same at the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass for me

At the time 11.07 on this Youtube video on the Crisis in the Church series (n.25)  of the SSPX,  Fr. Paul Robinson says that the faith at the Novus Mass is not the same as the faith of the Church. For him there is a break with Tradition.

But not for me. Since the break with Tradition on the salvation-doctrine and the past exclusivist ecclesiology has come with his false premise ( invisible people are visible.Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible person saved outside the Church and so is an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ).

The break with the faith of the past is also there at the Latin Mass which he offers.I have mentioned this before and the SSPX seems to agree with me. There is no denial.

1. They interpret LG 8,14,1,5,16 etc as physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus – then they blame Vatican Council II for this break with Tradition.

2.I interpret LG 8,14,15,16 etc as being physically invisible examples of salvation outside the Church.So LG 8 etc cannot be objective exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, Ad Gentes 7 of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q). I do not blame Vatican Council II. The Council has a continuity with Tradition. There is no develepment of doctrine. There is no new revelation with the Council. Vatican Council II is not a revolution in the Catholic Church.

The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is the same at the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass for me.The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II, for me.

 - Lionel Andrades

_________

APRIL 16, 2024

The editorial staff of the daily Messaggero is in deception on Vatican Council II and so are the SSPX bishops and priests and the Rome Vicariate.

 I pass by the daily Il Messaggero newspaper office on Via Tritone, just about, every day and I know that the newspaper correspondents and editorial staff   will interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally. They will also go for Holy Mass while they interpret the Creeds, which they recite at Mass, heretically and schismatically.There is no comment from anyone at the office. They are unable to respond to e-mails.They are doing ' what everyone else is doing'.

Like the SSPX bishops and priests, the newspaper correspondents are not rational in their interpretation of Church Documents.They are  politically correct with the Left, whom they represent.

The SSPX priests are also in ignorance at the Latin Mass otherwise they would have asked the media in Italy to interpret the Council rationally and so support the Tradition.

There are so many newspapers and TV correspondents in Rome who would all agree with me. They would agree that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases, invisible people in 2024. So there are no practical exceptions, in the text of the Council, for the past ecclesiocentrism and neither for Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

The philosophical reasoning of the correspondents at Ill Messaggero and the other newspapers here is dishonest. We humans cannot see invisible people in Rome. Objectively there are no visible cases of dead people saved with the baptism of desire and who are now in Heaven. We cannot see people in Heaven and on earth at the same time. The journalists are as dishonest as Pope Francis and the SSPX.

I have commented on some 24 videos on the SSPX  Crisis in the Church series. No one from the SSPX or the Vatican has responded. Since they all agree that LG 8, 14, 15 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases. But they do not interpret them as being hypothetical. Their interpretation is political left and not Catholic and neither is it honest even by secular standards.

The editorial staff of the daily Messaggero is in deception on Vatican Council II and so are the SSPX bishops and priests and the Rome Vicariate.

The SSX philosophy and theology is on a sinking ship. They are actually negating the ecclesiology of the old Roman Missal. In the 16^th century they were Feeneyite (invisible cases are always invisible, the baptism of desire refers to an invisible case).They were not Cushingite (invisible cases are physically visible, the baptism of desire refers to a known person saved outside the Church in the present times).

So now the SSPX has to appoint liberal priests as District Superiors who will offer the Latin Mass and go along with the Left and Pope Francis. The SSPX seminarians at Albano, Italy study at the Cushingite pontifical universities in Rome. This is approved by the District Superior at Albano and the SSPX Headquarters at Econe.

For Franca Giansoldati, at the Ill Messaggero, LG 8,14,1,5,16 etc refer to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church in 2024 and so the Council is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Ad Gentes 7 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (45,846) - but for me LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, etc refer to invisible cases in 1965-2024. So Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with the Council of Florence on EENS.

-Lionel Andrades

 APRIL 15, 2024

Mons. Annibale Bugnini and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre offered the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass respectively, by following the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) and so they interpreted Vatican Council II non-rationally. They changed the understanding of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed and rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), defined by three Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions. Changing the Creeds is first class heresy.This still is an impediment to offering Holy Mass

Mons. Annibale Bugnini and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre offered the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass respectively, by following the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) and so they interpreted Vatican Council II non-rationally. They changed the understanding of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed and rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), defined by three Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions. Changing the Creeds is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths (Ad Tuendem Fidem). This is schism with the past Magisterium on the Creeds and Councils.It  is an impediment to offering Holy Mass in any rite.

At the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass Lefebvre and Bugnini discarded the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal with their interpretation from the 1949 LOHO. So there were exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology, for them.This was a break with Tradition.

So are the Novus Ordo, Latin and Greek Mass valid today when the priest offering Holy Mass is in an objective mortal sin of faith? This is a public scandal for those who know, have understood and discern.How can any priest have the faculty to offer Holy Mass when he publicly rejects the Athanasius Creed and produces new understandings of the Nicene and Apostles Creed?

 Even in the Amazon, Melkite, Byzantine and Syro Malabar rites, the priest who offers Holy Mass must belong to the Catholic Church. The popes and cardinals have to be Catholic.

Pope Francis, the cardinals, the SSPX bishops and priests do not interpret the Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc like me. One of us has to be wrong.

Either I am correct and the rest of the Church is wrong or the whole Church is wrong, except for the bishops, priests and lay Catholics, who agree with me and support me.

But when they choose a rational premise ( invisible people are invisible, LG 16 refers to an invisible case in 1965-2024) and rational inference ( LG 16 is not a practical exception for the dogma EENS, Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Catechism of Pope Pius X 24Q,27 Q etc), their traditional conclusion ( Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with EENS and the rest of Tradition), is the same as mine. Vatican Council II becomes traditional. The Council immediately becomes traditional and ecclesiocentric. Anyone can check it out. The result is immediate.

It is reading Vatican Council II with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’, instead of the present ‘the red is an exception for the blue’.

It is the same Vatican Council II before all of us but there is a radical change. This must be the ethical and magisterial interpretation of the Councils, Creeds and Catechisms, at all rites.

According to Canon Law, the priest who offers Holy Mass has to be a Catholic. He must believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. The popes from Paul VI did not meet this criterion and neither did Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops, the bishops ordained by Bishop Richardson and the sedevacantist bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas.  - Lionel Andrades

APRIL 14, 2024

It is time for the SSPX priests to affirm Vatican Council II (rational), whenever they can. Presently, they are not apostolic on the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed, neither on the Catechisms and the Church Councils

The SSPX priests in Rome are not capable of talking theology with me. Whenever they see me they avoid me except for Fr. Aldo Rossi, the former Prior at Albano who said that it is obvious that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2 referred to only hypothetical cases.

I have been in, only Rome, over the last 20 years. I do not travel. I have not seen Florence, Pisa, Trent…or the U.K, France, Germany ….Travel is  not for me.I would have liked to meet the SSPX Superiors in other countries.

I wish the SSPX had a District Superior at Albano who could confidently proclaim the Catholic Faith. He must not choose the political line on Vatican Council II but must be open to returning to Tradition.

It is time for the SSPX priests to affirm Vatican Council II (rational), whenever they can. Presently, they are not apostolic.

The Nicene Creed for them says, ‘I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church’.

The Apostles Creed says for them, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, which today teaches that outside the Church there is salvation; there is known salvation, while over the centuries it taught that outside the Catholic Church there was no salvation; there was no known salvation.

The Athanasius Creed for the SSPX says that not everyone needs to enter the Church and have Catholic Faith for eternal life - there are known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.

The Catechism of Pope Pius X has 24Q, 27Q contradicted by 29 Q, for the SSPX, but not for me.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846) is contradicted by CCC 847-848, for the SSPX but not for me.

For the SSPX , Vatican Council II ( AG 7) is contradicted by LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, but not for me.

For the SSPX, the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence on EENS, has exceptions- but not for me.

The Council Fathers (1965), Pope Paul VI and the Coetus International Patrem group made a mistake when they confused what was invisible as being visible and then created a New Theology with the nontraditional conclusion. This was not the work of the Holy Spirit. Inspite of this historical mistake, today we can still interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries. We simply interpret invisible cases as not being visible (LG 16 is invisible) and so not being objective exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism .The past ecclesiocentrism was accompanied with Christocentrism. But today for the SSPX and the popes there is only a Christocentrism without an ecclesiocentrism which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

For Pope Francis and the SSPX,   Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, and Nostra Aetate 2, 1 refer to physically visible cases but for me they are hypothetical only.

For Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez  and the SSPX ,   Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3 , and Nostra Aetate 2 are a break with the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition. For me they refer to invisible cases in 2024. So there is no contradiction of Tradition.

For the SSPX and Pope Francis the red is an exception for the blue in the following passages. For me the red is not an exception for the blue.

(The passages marked in red refer to hypothetical and invisible cases and so do not contradict the orthodox passages, here marked in blue and neither the dogma EENS).

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16). - Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE.

 

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism124 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church…

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

 THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE.

 The passage in Red refers to hypothetical and invisible cases in the present times. The passage in Blue are orthodox and support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The passages in Red do not contradict the passages in Blue.

- Lionel Andrades

 1

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

 

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator… Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.- Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.

 

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. – Unitatis Redintigratio 3 Vatican Council II

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. – Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II.

________________________

APRIL 11, 2024

The Coetus International Patrum did not know that if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to invisible cases in the present time (a fact overlooked in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office) then there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

The Coetus International Patrum did not know that if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to invisible cases in the present time (a fact overlooked in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office) then there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

So the Council returns to Tradition immediately.

With the dogma EENS and the exclusivity of the Athanasius Creed intact there is nothing in the Council-text to negate the non separation of Church and State, the Social Reign of Christ in all legislation, the traditional ecumenism of return, traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic and general orthodoxy.

 The Council is no more liberal. It has the hermeneneutic of continuity with Tradition.

This series does not discuss what would be the conclusion of Vatican Council II, if LG 8, 14, 15, and 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 referred to only hypothetical cases, invisible people in 1965-2024? Instead this series is based upon LG 8, 14, 1, 5, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being examples of physically visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2024.

For example. Lumen Gentium 8 refers to where the Church subsists outside its visible boundaries. For the SSPX priests LG 8 is an exception for the dogma EENS. So they imply that LG 8 refers to a known person saved outside the Church. I do not make this error. LG 8 is always hypothetical for me.

For them Unitatis Redintigratio would refer to a Christian being saved outside the Catholic Church in imperfect communion with the Church, who is known and nameable. For me this is a hypothetical case. If anyone was saved as such it could only known to God. So UR 3 does not contradict the dogma EENS upon which was based the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all legislation, the non separation of Church and State to save souls from Hell and traditional mission and outreach based upon traditional ecclesiocentrism. It is the same Vatican Council II before us but our premises our different and so our conclusions would also be different. - Lionel Andrades

 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/04/crisis-series-20-with-fr-macgillivray.html

The editorial staff of the daily Messaggero is in deception on Vatican Council II and so are the SSPX bishops and priests and the Rome Vicariate.

 I pass by the daily Il Messaggero newspaper office on Via Tritone, just about, every day and I know that the newspaper correspondents and editorial staff   will interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally. They will also go for Holy Mass while they interpret the Creeds, which they recite at Mass, heretically and schismatically.There is no comment from anyone at the office. They are unable to respond to e-mails.They are doing ' what everyone else is doing'.

Like the SSPX bishops and priests, the newspaper correspondents are not rational in their interpretation of Church Documents.They are  politically correct with the Left, whom they represent.

The SSPX priests are also in ignorance at the Latin Mass otherwise they would have asked the media in Italy to interpret the Council rationally and so support the Tradition.

There are so many newspapers and TV correspondents in Rome who would all agree with me. They would agree that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases, invisible people in 2024. So there are no practical exceptions, in the text of the Council, for the past ecclesiocentrism and neither for Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

The philosophical reasoning of the correspondents at Ill Messaggero and the other newspapers here is dishonest. We humans cannot see invisible people in Rome. Objectively there are no visible cases of dead people saved with the baptism of desire and who are now in Heaven. We cannot see people in Heaven and on earth at the same time. The journalists are as dishonest as Pope Francis and the SSPX.

I have commented on some 24 videos on the SSPX  Crisis in the Church series. No one from the SSPX or the Vatican has responded. Since they all agree that LG 8, 14, 15 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases. But they do not interpret them as being hypothetical. Their interpretation is political left and not Catholic and neither is it honest even by secular standards.

The editorial staff of the daily Messaggero is in deception on Vatican Council II and so are the SSPX bishops and priests and the Rome Vicariate.

The SSX philosophy and theology is on a sinking ship. They are actually negating the ecclesiology of the old Roman Missal. In the 16^th century they were Feeneyite (invisible cases are always invisible, the baptism of desire refers to an invisible case).They were not Cushingite (invisible cases are physically visible, the baptism of desire refers to a known person saved outside the Church in the present times).

So now the SSPX has to appoint liberal priests as District Superiors who will offer the Latin Mass and go along with the Left and Pope Francis. The SSPX seminarians at Albano, Italy study at the Cushingite pontifical universities in Rome. This is approved by the District Superior at Albano and the SSPX Headquarters at Econe.

For Franca Giansoldati, at the Ill Messaggero, LG 8,14,1,5,16 etc refer to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church in 2024 and so the Council is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Ad Gentes 7 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (45,846) - but for me LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, etc refer to invisible cases in 1965-2024. So Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with the Council of Florence on EENS.

-Lionel Andrades

 APRIL 15, 2024

Mons. Annibale Bugnini and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre offered the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass respectively, by following the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) and so they interpreted Vatican Council II non-rationally. They changed the understanding of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed and rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), defined by three Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions. Changing the Creeds is first class heresy.This still is an impediment to offering Holy Mass

Mons. Annibale Bugnini and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre offered the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass respectively, by following the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) and so they interpreted Vatican Council II non-rationally. They changed the understanding of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed and rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), defined by three Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions. Changing the Creeds is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths (Ad Tuendem Fidem). This is schism with the past Magisterium on the Creeds and Councils.It  is an impediment to offering Holy Mass in any rite.

At the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass Lefebvre and Bugnini discarded the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal with their interpretation from the 1949 LOHO. So there were exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology, for them.This was a break with Tradition.

So are the Novus Ordo, Latin and Greek Mass valid today when the priest offering Holy Mass is in an objective mortal sin of faith? This is a public scandal for those who know, have understood and discern.How can any priest have the faculty to offer Holy Mass when he publicly rejects the Athanasius Creed and produces new understandings of the Nicene and Apostles Creed?

 Even in the Amazon, Melkite, Byzantine and Syro Malabar rites, the priest who offers Holy Mass must belong to the Catholic Church. The popes and cardinals have to be Catholic.

Pope Francis, the cardinals, the SSPX bishops and priests do not interpret the Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc like me. One of us has to be wrong.

Either I am correct and the rest of the Church is wrong or the whole Church is wrong, except for the bishops, priests and lay Catholics, who agree with me and support me.

But when they choose a rational premise ( invisible people are invisible, LG 16 refers to an invisible case in 1965-2024) and rational inference ( LG 16 is not a practical exception for the dogma EENS, Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Catechism of Pope Pius X 24Q,27 Q etc), their traditional conclusion ( Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with EENS and the rest of Tradition), is the same as mine. Vatican Council II becomes traditional. The Council immediately becomes traditional and ecclesiocentric. Anyone can check it out. The result is immediate.

It is reading Vatican Council II with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’, instead of the present ‘the red is an exception for the blue’.

It is the same Vatican Council II before all of us but there is a radical change. This must be the ethical and magisterial interpretation of the Councils, Creeds and Catechisms, at all rites.

According to Canon Law, the priest who offers Holy Mass has to be a Catholic. He must believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. The popes from Paul VI did not meet this criterion and neither did Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops, the bishops ordained by Bishop Richardson and the sedevacantist bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas.  - Lionel Andrades

APRIL 14, 2024

It is time for the SSPX priests to affirm Vatican Council II (rational), whenever they can. Presently, they are not apostolic on the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed, neither on the Catechisms and the Church Councils

The SSPX priests in Rome are not capable of talking theology with me. Whenever they see me they avoid me except for Fr. Aldo Rossi, the former Prior at Albano who said that it is obvious that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2 referred to only hypothetical cases.

I have been in, only Rome, over the last 20 years. I do not travel. I have not seen Florence, Pisa, Trent…or the U.K, France, Germany ….Travel is  not for me.I would have liked to meet the SSPX Superiors in other countries.

I wish the SSPX had a District Superior at Albano who could confidently proclaim the Catholic Faith. He must not choose the political line on Vatican Council II but must be open to returning to Tradition.

It is time for the SSPX priests to affirm Vatican Council II (rational), whenever they can. Presently, they are not apostolic.

The Nicene Creed for them says, ‘I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church’.

The Apostles Creed says for them, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, which today teaches that outside the Church there is salvation; there is known salvation, while over the centuries it taught that outside the Catholic Church there was no salvation; there was no known salvation.

The Athanasius Creed for the SSPX says that not everyone needs to enter the Church and have Catholic Faith for eternal life - there are known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.

The Catechism of Pope Pius X has 24Q, 27Q contradicted by 29 Q, for the SSPX, but not for me.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846) is contradicted by CCC 847-848, for the SSPX but not for me.

For the SSPX , Vatican Council II ( AG 7) is contradicted by LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, but not for me.

For the SSPX, the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence on EENS, has exceptions- but not for me.

The Council Fathers (1965), Pope Paul VI and the Coetus International Patrem group made a mistake when they confused what was invisible as being visible and then created a New Theology with the nontraditional conclusion. This was not the work of the Holy Spirit. Inspite of this historical mistake, today we can still interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries. We simply interpret invisible cases as not being visible (LG 16 is invisible) and so not being objective exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism .The past ecclesiocentrism was accompanied with Christocentrism. But today for the SSPX and the popes there is only a Christocentrism without an ecclesiocentrism which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

For Pope Francis and the SSPX,   Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, and Nostra Aetate 2, 1 refer to physically visible cases but for me they are hypothetical only.

For Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez  and the SSPX ,   Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3 , and Nostra Aetate 2 are a break with the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition. For me they refer to invisible cases in 2024. So there is no contradiction of Tradition.

For the SSPX and Pope Francis the red is an exception for the blue in the following passages. For me the red is not an exception for the blue.

(The passages marked in red refer to hypothetical and invisible cases and so do not contradict the orthodox passages, here marked in blue and neither the dogma EENS).

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16). - Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE.

 

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism124 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church…

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

 THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE.

 The passage in Red refers to hypothetical and invisible cases in the present times. The passage in Blue are orthodox and support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The passages in Red do not contradict the passages in Blue.

- Lionel Andrades

 1

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

 

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator… Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.- Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.

 

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. – Unitatis Redintigratio 3 Vatican Council II

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. – Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II.