The future popes,cardinals, bishops, priests, religious sisters and laity in general are expected to be traditional. Since Vatican Council II can only be interpreted honestly. The premise has to be rational only. The conclusion is traditional.
The Council has no practical exceptions for te dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus. So with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism for
salvation and LG 8, 14 and 16 not being practical exceptions for AG 7, the Council
supports Feeneyite EENS. It is dogmatic. It is not only a pastoral Council.
The Council is ecclesiocentric since LG 8 etc were interpreted
rationally, as being invisible cases in 1965-2022.
So when the present two popes interpret Vatican Council II as being a break with Feeneyite EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors, they are wrongly assuming that LG 8 etc are physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions for the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.This is an objective error which has come into the Church with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, which Pope Pius XII did not correct. The Letter with the objective mistake was placed in the Denzinger and cited at Vatican Council II (LG 16).
Now we know that in the diocese of Manchester, USA, Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire, must interpret Vatican Council II rationally. So he has to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Brother Andre Marie micm and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire. The Council cannot be interpreted deceptively by him.It is the same for the other USCCB bishops and cardinals.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
