Pope Paul VI was fallible on faith.He also made a mistake on an infallible teaching of the Church, with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.He avoided the rational alternative. All the popes upto Francis have repeated the same mistake.

Pope Paul VI was fallible on faith.He also made a mistake on an infallible teaching of the Church, with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.He avoided the rational alternative. All the popes upto Francis have repeated the same mistake.

Pope Paul VI, like Cardinal Karol Wojtyla and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvere, interpreted Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being non hypothetical.They were objective in real life with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).He confused what was invisible as being visible. Possibily it was also an innocent error of the popes who followed.

So after Vatican Council II(1965) he interpreted invisible cases of LG 8( elements of sanctification and truth in other religions), LG 14( case of the unknown catechumen) and LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance outside the Church) etc as being visible.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc referred to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church for the pope. So they were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.If they were not personally known and visible they could not be exceptions to EENS.So the strict interpretation of EENS was made obsolete with this irrationality.

1.EENS which was defined by three Church Council II in the Extraordinary Magisterium was rejected, by confusing what was invisible as being visible.

2.The dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra was also rejected.Fr. Hans Kung sj commented upon this.EENS was an infallible teaching and it was rejected with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.

So the a) dogma EENS and 2) the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra  was rejected with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Paul VI.

3.But Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally and and there is  no rejection of Tradition.The Council supports EENS.But now we have the rejection of Vatican Council II in the ordinary Magisterium, with the false premise and inference.

So the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium was put aside   by Pope Paul VI.He rejected the dogma EENS, the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra ( in defining EENS) and Vatican Council II interpreted rationally in the ordinary Magisteriium.

The result : the understanding of the Creeds and Catechisms have been changed.

The error was repeated by popes John Paul II, Benedict and Francis.

So were they infallible on faith ? No.They made a mistake on a faith issue.

Today the professors  at the John Lateran University, Rome and other pontificial uniìversities, will not tell students that there is nothing in the Council-text to contradict the strict interpretation of EENS.

There is nothing in the Council-text to cotradict the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology and the old ecumenism of return, unless you confuse what is invisible as being visible, as did the popes from Paul VI.

The problem was also there during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII who did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney when it was being said that unknown cases of baptism of desire (BOD) baptism of blood (BBOB) and invincible  ignorance (I.I) were known exceptions to EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.

Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, did not correct the Jesuits at Boston College, who made an objective mistake(invisible people are visible) on BOD, BOB and I.I.

For the popes and saints over the centuries BOD, BOB and I.I were always hypothetical only.

They could only be hypothetical. 

For Pope Pius XII and Paul VI , BOD, BOB and I.I were objective. This was the small mistake which changed the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Pope Benedict called for doctrinal talks with the SSPX without addressing this issue.-Lionel Andrades