Canto fuerte contra los poderes del mal (Oración de San Benito): CRUX SACRA SIT MIHI LUX (33x)

Vatican II Is A New Religion only when it is interpreted with the False Premise

Vatican II ‘Is A New Religion’ only when it is interpreted with the False Premise.When it is interpreted with the Rational Premise it supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so there would be no new ecumenism.The Council supports the past exclusivist ecclesiology and the old theology and an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.

Brother Michael and Peter Dimond are interpreting Vatican Council II like the popes who use the False Premise like them and then they condemn the Council and the popes.

For me there is nothing in Vatican Council II ( Unitatis Reditigratio)  to contradict the strict interpretation of EENS. UR 3 etc refers to hypothetical and not visible cases.I interpret UR 3 rationally. My premise is rational.

For many of the Council Fathers ( 1965) there was known salvation outside the Church. They used the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the False Premise as did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

The popes since Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II (UR 3 etc) with the False Premise and so created a break with the past ecclesiocentrism. Similarly the popes since Pius XII interpreted the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with the False Premise and so created alleged practical exceptions for traditional EENS.So the fault lies in their interpretation. If we interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise the same Vatican Council II becomes traditional and ecclesiocentric.

So the 'new religion' is created with the False Premise and now with the Rational Premise we can go back to the 'old religion'.

Inspite of the mistakes of the Council Fathers we can interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents rationally and so there is no break with Tradition.

Since the MHFM interprets the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with the False Premise ( and rejects them unlike the popes who also use the false premise but do not reject BOD and I.I) they would also be interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 29 Q-invincible ignorance) with the False Premise. So 29 Q would contradict 24 Q and 27 Q( outside the Church no salvation) in that same Catechism, for the MHFM.

They would also be interpreting Mystici Corporis and Quanta Cura irrationally, like the liberals and the Lefebvrists. Since the False Premise creates heresy and schism, irrespective, of who uses it. -Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise is dogmatic and not just pastoral.

 

Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise is dogmatic and not just pastoral. Since hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology.While Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 interpreted rationally supports the strict interpretation of EENS.

 LG 14 (the baptism of desire) and LG 16 (invincible ignorance) are not objective in our reality. They do not contradict EENS according to the missionaries in the 16^th century who did not project exceptions for EENS. Since the Jesuits in the Middle Ages did not use the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB). They did not claim that BOD, BOB and I.I, without the baptism of water, were physically known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is the rational approach.BOD, BOB and I.I are not known in particular cases. So when St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anthony Mary Claret and popes refer to the BOD,I.I and BOB, it is always to hypothetical cases. If we re-interpret these saints and popes as projecting BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions for Feeneyite EENS then we are assuming that these are objective cases, and so we are assuming that these are objective cases  and so there are practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocenterism of the Catholic Church.Our premise would be wrong.So our conclusion would also be wrong. It would be said that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.

But when BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally they do not contradict EENS, while Ad Gentes 7 supports EENS and is placed in the Catechism( 846) under the title outside the Church there is no salvation.  -Lionel Andrades

Santo Rosario dalla Collina delle Apparizioni - 12 febbraio 2022 Medjugorje

Riapertura della la Grotta di Lourdes: i pellegrini da oggi possono ritornare a toccare la roccia