I am not a Lefebvrist or modernist from Boston College.Both groups interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.

I am not a sedevacantist or schismatic. I am faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I accept the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).

I accept the popes from Paul VI to Francis.I do not belong to any sect and neither am I putting forward a new theology.

I attend Mass in Italian and am not opposed to the Latin Mass. I attend Mass in Latin whenever I can.

My grandparents were Catholic and I was raised in a Catholic home. I was baptized as an infant.

I do not make the common mistake on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). For me the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, refer to hypothetical cases only. So they cannot be practical exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, as it was known to the Magisterium in the 16th century.

Similarly Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2, Gaudium et Specs 22 etc, in Vatican Council II are hypothetical, speculative and theoretical.They are not  objective cases in 2019.So they cannot be practical exceptions to the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus,for me.

Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.Vatican Council II for me supports the ecclesiology of St.Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi.

When the saints affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, there was no conflict.There is also no conflict for me.

I am not a Lefebvrist or modernist from Boston College.Both groups interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.

They assume invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible. Then they wrongly conclude that there are personally known non Catholics, visible, saved outside the Catholic Church.

It is as if they can see and meet non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water.Then they say outside the Church there is salvation.This is the New Theology for them.

For me the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I cannot see people in Heaven saved outside the Church. Nor can I physically see people saved, on earth, without the baptism of water.This is common sense. It is something obvious.

But the popes from Paul VI to Francis have made this common mistake. Their interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational -but still the Council can be interpreted today rationally and traditionally.

The Council Fathers made an objective error but all the same, I love Vatican Council II.It is rational, for me.

-Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 17, 2019

  

Pope Francis needs to tell Eugenio Scalfari that articles and reports in his newspaper on Vatican Council II have a built-in error : Andrea Tornielli needs to clean up the Vatican websites which carry the same mistake

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/pope-francis-needs-to-tell-eugenio.html

NOVEMBER 18, 2019

I told the bishop that every one interprets Vatican Council II in the wrong way and it must be the same in his diocese in Africa

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/i-told-bishop-that-every-one-interprets.html