Bishop Steven J.Lopes like the Conciliar popes from Paul VI to Benedict XVI interprets Vatican Council II with the red passages being exceptions to the blue passages in the Council-text. This is irrational and he expects Fr. Vaughn Treco to accept this.

Bishop Steven J.Lopes like the Conciliar popes from Paul VI to Benedict XVI interprets Vatican Council II with the red passages being exceptions to the blue passages in the Council-text. This is irrational and he expects Fr. Vaughn Treco to accept this.

The bishop,instead of correting the heresy, has excommunicated the priest.Since he did not accept the Council , with the same false reasoning.

The priest does interpret the Council with the same false reasong but he rejects the conclusion, while the bishop accepts it.

The bishop of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter,a community for former Anglican clergy and laypeople within the Catholic Church,  interprets unknown cases of the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the Magisterium in the 16th century.So for him invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

Similarly for the bishop, references to hypothetical and theoretical cases, in UR 3,NS 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, would be known non Catholics saved outside the Church since 1965-2019.

He expected the parish, which he closed, to have accepted this mix up between what is invisible as being visible, implicit as explicit and hypothetical as being defacto and known.

This is deception.

He also expects all the non Catholics in Minneapolis, USA to use this reasoning and then project it as being Catholic.

Non Catholics in the USA are being informed by the bishop that unknown non Catholics are known, invisible people are visible even though he cannot name any of them, in real life.

-Lionel Andrades