Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria have to correct the doctrinal and theological error in Traditionis Custode made with the False Premise.

Pope Francis and Archbishop Arthur Roche call Vatican Council II the work of the Holy Spirit and they interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salUs and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Magisterium. How can the Holy Spirit make a factual mistake and a break with Tradition? It is a fact of life that there are no known cases of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in the present times ( 1949-2021).It is really their interpretation with a Fake Premise which creates the objective mistake. The same mistake with the Fake Premise was made in the Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.Unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were projected as practical and exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

For me LG 8, LG 16 etc are invisible and hypothetical and so I can accept Vatican Council II. LG 8, LG 16 etc are not practical exceptions for EENS. Many people agree with me. This is something obvious. It is common sense. My interpretation is in harmony with the past Magisterium which was inspired by the Holy Spirit.It is not my personal observation it is an observation any one can make.

So the present day popes are Magisterial only when they interpret Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc) with the Rational Premise. With the irrational premise they confuse invisible cases of LG 8, LG 16 etc as being visible. Then they infer that in the present times there are explicit and objective exceptions for EENS etc, mentioned in Vatican Council II. So they conclude that the Holy Spirit has inspired the Church to break with Tradition and that this is the new direction the Church must take.

They do not acknowledge that they made a mistake in Traditionis Custode when they interpreted the Council with a False Premise like Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Traditionis Custode is being implemented by cardinals and bishops who also interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise and then place restrictions on Holy Mass in Latin.

It is not said, that if Bishop Roland Minnerath, for example , interpreted Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise then he would become a traditionalist like the Latin laity in Dijon, France. Since the Council would not contradict the dogma EENS and the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q).

Similarly if Pope Francis, Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishop Roche would interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, the Council would no more contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. They would instead be conservative, like the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16^th century.

The theological liberalism of Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Kasper was only possible because they used the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as did some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II(1965).However in spite of the objective error of these Council Fathers ( Rahner, Ratzinger, Cushing etc) Vatican Council II can be interpreted today with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, referring to only hypothetical, subjective, theoretical and non objective cases in 2021.So we are back to the old theology and the past exclusivist ecclesiology,  without making any change in the text of Vatican Council II. We simply look at the text and read LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc, as referring to a thought in the mind. It’s speculative and not a concrete person.

So we are left with the same Vatican Council II before us of Cardinals Kasper, Koch and Marx but it is a Council which is Feeneyite. It is dogmatic. It supports the traditional strict interpretation of EENS. So pastorally we would support an exclusivist and traditional ecumenism and an ecclesiocentric approach in inter-religious dialogue. It would be part of traditional Catholic Mission. Since in general all non Catholics are oriented to Hell ( AG 7, EENS, CDF Notification on Fr. J. Dupuis sj etc) and there are no exceptions mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II when we avoid the False Premise. With the Rational Premise we change our perspective and the Council changes before our very eyes. We no more have to use the lens of Rahner, Ratzinger and Lefebvre. We can choose the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even if a rupture is chosen by Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Roche and Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke.

 With the premise we control the hermeneutic. We do not have to depend upon the popes from Paul VI who were all irrational. Why choose an irrational model when a rational option is there which traditional and non schismatic is?

Interpreting Vatican Council II like Traditionis Custode would be a sin for a good Catholic. Since the False Premise produces a new version of the Nicene and Apostles Creed, reje

cts the Athanasius Creed,  creates a non Magisterial version of EENS and an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, even though a rational choice is available.

We follow Jesus. We follow the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit and upheld by the popes and saints over the centuries. We should not reject Sacred Tradition with an irrational premise, which needs to be identified and corrected by Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria.

We still have the same Vatican Council II before us. No changes are to be made. We simply look at the Council differently – and theology changes.

There is no more a break with Tradition in the name of Vatican Council II. This is irrespective if Holy Mass is in Latin or the vernacular.

We now know how to switch on or off the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition. We have found out the secret.-Lionel Andrades

 DECEMBER 20, 2021

All the cardinals, bishops, priests, religiosu sisters and lay catechists must only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. It is the moral thing to do.

 

All the cardinals, bishops, priests, religious sisters and lay catechists must only interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. It is the moral thing to do. Pope Francis could take back Traditionis Custode since it wrongly interprets Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise. The Fake Premise is also used by the Lefebvrists, Thucs and those who attend the Latin Mass.

The Fake Premise produces a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II and schism with the past Magisterium.

We can interpret Vatican Council II rationally and re-interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11 etc as referring to hypothetical cases only in 1965-2021. SO they cannot be practical exceptions for the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. They are not examples of salvation outside the Church. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

So new books and articles should be written on Vatican Council II interpreted with a Fake Premise. This was the mistake of

Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Marx must announce 

that Vatican Council II will be interpreted rationally in the German Catholic seminaries, universities and theological publications.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/all-cardinals-bishops-priests-religiosu.html