Pope John Paul II interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise instead of without it. This was a mistake.

  

 AUGUST 20, 2020

 

Pope John Paul II interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise instead of without it. This was a mistake.

Vatican Council II( with the false premise) contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) which was defined by three Church Councils. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to it as an' infallible teaching.' So with this irrational interpretation of the Council he was also subverting the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. Since EENS was ex cathedra and after 1965 was made obsolete.He did not correct the same mistake of Pope Paul VI.

He also excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for not accepted Vatican Council II( with the false premise).

If he had chosen Vatican Council II ( without the false premise) then Lumen Gentium 8,14 and 16 for example, would not contradict EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney, whom he did not defend.

There would have been no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition, in particular, the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism, EENS on outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation and traditional missioin based on the knowledge that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell ,being outside the Catholic Church.All, and not just those who 'know.'

With their being alleged exceptions to EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century, the theological basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King,in all political legislation, ended. There were alleged exceptions to proclaiming Jesus as King of the Universe, since with the false premise there was a New Theology.It said there was known salvation in other religions and so all did not have to be Catholic to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance were considered non hypothetical and objective.This false premise produced a false inference and then a non traditional conclusion.

He did not rehabilitate Fr. Leonard Feeney and neither Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.-Lionel Andrades

>