In spite of the initial error of the Council Fathers,and the subsequent popes, Pope Francis can interpret the Council in harmony with EENS and the past Magisterium

 There is a major error in Vatican Council II and in this sense the Council cannot be Magisterial.The Council Fathers considered hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being non hypothetical, objective examples of salvation outside the Church( without faith and the baptism of water) and practical exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This is an objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). They  concluded like the LOHO, that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.

So Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and also mentions invincible ignorance as if it is an exception, for EENS, or relevant to EENS.

Similarly Lumen Gentium 14 says the Church is necessary for salvation but mentions the baptism of desire, as if it is an exception.

DEADWOOD, EMPTIES

Now if the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are read, and pictured as always being  theoretical, and so are not exceptions to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church,we have a rational and traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14 etc). BOD and I.I are seen as deadwood, ‘ a null set’, empties.

But because of the formal error which the Council Fathers  picked up from the LOHO, and which was not corrected by the popes, there are today two interpretations of Vatican Council II.

1)      With the false premise which cannot be Magisterial.

2)      Without the fake premise which does not contradict  the past Magisterium and Tradition and so is Magisterial  on EENS, Syllabus of Errors     etc.

The LOHO error in principle confuses invisible cases as being visible exceptions to the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.This error runs throughout Vatican Council II. It's there at UR3, NA 2, GS 22, LG 8, LG 16 etc.For the Council Fathers, the New Theology (created with the error of the false premise)says outside the Church there is salvation.Their reference was the LOHO. It was cited in Vatican Council II(LG 16), and placed in the Denzinger.In 1965 at the close of Vatican Council II the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was still not lifted.

The excommunication was maintained for some 19 years as Pope Pius XII, Pope John XIII, Pope Paul VI  would accept the irrational observation which made the dogma EENS obsolete.

Now when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the common false premise of some 80 years, it cannot me Magisterial.He has to choose the rational premise, the rational inference and traditional conclusion.Since then the Council will be in harmony with the past Magisterium on EENS etc.

Inspite of the initial error of the Council Fathers,and the subsequent popes, Pope Francis can interpret the Council in harmony with EENS and the past Magisterium.-Lionel Andrades

t

 Lionel Andrades

Promotore dell'interpretazione di Lionel Andrades del Concilio Vaticano II. Per lui il Concilio è dogmatico e non solo pastorale.

Scrittore sulla scoperta delle due interpretazioni del Concilio Vaticano II, l'una razionale e l'altra irrazionale, si interpreta l'una con la falsa premessa e l'altra senza. Uno è Magistrale e l'altro, quello comune, è non Magistrale.

Lo stesso vale per i Credo ei Catechismi.
Ci possono essere due interpretazioni.
Perché i cattolici dovrebbero scegliere una versione irrazionale che è eretica, non tradizionale e scismatica, quando c'è un'opzione razionale che è tradizionale?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

AUGUST 4, 2021

Poland and Hungary need to adopt the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/poland-and-hungary-need-to-adopt-lionel.html

________________