Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican, issued Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus, with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally. So were they Magisterial or not Magisterial? some may ask.

 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican, issued Redemptoris  Missio and Dominus Iesus, with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally. So were they Magisterial or not Magisterial? some may ask.

For me, they are Magisterial, since they can be interpreted in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the past ecclesiocentrism.

We simply interpret hypothetical and theoretical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being hypothetical and theoretical only. We do not project them as practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. Since they cannot be exceptions in real life. We cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Church.

It is the same with Vatican Council II. The Council interpreted rationally is not a break with the Magisterium the centuries on EENS etc. It does not contradict the past Catechisms and Creeds and the past Magisterium. - Lionel Andrades

Pope Francis' new encyclical and letters must not be issued with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. This was a mistake in Traditionis Custode and Amoris Laetitia

 

                               -Lionel Andrades

Now with Vatican Council II corrected, we return to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, without making any change in the text of the Council

 

When Pope John Paul II issued Dominus Iesus which highlighted the importance of the Catholic Church for salvation, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church, it was reported, issued his version of exclusive salvation in the Orthodox Church. It is the same pattern in other religions too.

The change came into the Catholic Church with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. With the false premise liberalism was created.It says outside the Church there is known salvation.

Now with Vatican Council II corrected, we return to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, without making any change in the text of the Council.- Lionel Andrades

Christine Niles has posted a video on the Divine Mercy devotion. So has Brother Peter Dimond.Christine interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and so does Peter Dimond.

 

Christine Niles has posted a video on the Divine Mercy devotion. So has Brother Peter Dimond.Christine interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and so does Peter Dimond. Since Pope John Paul II accepted Vatican Council II irrational, which is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), Peter Dimond rejects Vatican Council II and Pope John Paul II. So he also rejects the Divine Mercy devotion approved by Pope John Paul II.

Christine Niles and Michael Voris are not Catholics, for Peter Dimond. Since they accept Pope John Paul II and the other popes, who interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and so were able to reject the dogma EENS.

For political reasons Christine Niles and Church Militant TV have not denied that they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. They allow the confusion to remain. They keep speaking and writing on other issues- except this one.

Pope Francis also interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like Christine Niles and Bro.Peter Dimond but supports the Divine Mercy Devotion, unlike the Dimonds at the Most Holy Family Monastery.

On the other hand, Peter Dimond affirms the dogma EENS according to the Church Councils while Christine Niles rejects the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence, She projects the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as exceptions. She accepts the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which Peter Dimond rejects.

Christine Niles interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, rejects the Church Councils and would be re-interpreting the Creeds also irrationally and she comments on the Divine Mercy Devotion.

I interpret Vatican Council II rationally and I pray the 3 o’clock Divine Mercy prayer. I have read the Diary of St. Faustina Kowalski and would recommend it. Pope John Paul II is my favorite pope. -Lionel Andrades

From New Divine Mercy Shrine to Evening Program in Medjugorje

Blessing of New Divine Mercy Shrine in Medjugorje | Divine Mercy Sunday

New Divine Mercy Chapel in Medjugorje

To go back to Tradition you don’t have to depend upon the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or the Ecclesia Dei communities. Simply interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as being hypothetical and invisible cases in 2023. You are back to Tradition!

 

To go back to Tradition you don’t have to depend upon the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or the Ecclesia Dei communities. Simply interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as being hypothetical and invisible cases in 2023. You are back to Tradition! It is so simple that it is unbelievable. If the pope and cardinals do this, the whole Church returns to Tradition immediately at the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass. - Lionel Andrades

Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) does not make the distinction between Vatican Council II rational and irrational. Vatican Council II irrational, of course has exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So he rejects Vatican Council II ( irrational). Like him I too affirm the dogma EENS and reject Vatican Council II, irrational -but I also affirm Vatican Council II, rational, unlike him.

Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) does not make the distinction between Vatican Council II rational and irrational. Vatican Council II irrational, of course has exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So he rejects Vatican Council II ( irrational). Like him I too affirm the dogma EENS and reject Vatican Council II, irrational -but I also affirm Vatican Council II, rational, unlike him.

Any pope who interprets Vatican Council II irrationally he calls a heretic.

I accept Vatican Council II only interpreted rationally. So the Council is not a rupture with the dogma EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442).Peter Dimond accepts these two Councils and interprets them like me.

Since I interpret Vatican Council II, rationally, this is a new discovery and I can look at the Council differently. I see Peter Dimond interpreting the Council irrationally with the popes and the rest of the mainline Church. He calls the rest of the Church the Vatican Council II sect.He believes he is in the only one, true Church.

He says those who accept the popes who have accepted Vatican Council II (interpreted irrationally) are not Catholic. So he is a sedevacantist.

But I accept the popes and do not condemn them or Peter Dimond. I interpret the Council rationally and Peter and Michael Dimond have nothing to say on this issue.I do not say that either of the two of them are not Catholic.

Since hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) do not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS for me, I can affirm BOD, BOB and I.I and EENS. I do not have to choose.

For the popes and the Dimonds, since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to objective cases, visible people saved outside the Church-  they have to choose. It is BOD, BOB and I.I or EENS according to the Church Councils.

It is the same with Vatican Council II and EENS.Since the Council is not a rupture with EENS for me, I can affirm Vatican Council II, rational and also EENS, interpreted rationally i.e. with BOD, BOB and I.I being only hypothetical cases and so not objective exceptions for traditional EENS.

So the bottom line is that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is rational and the other is irrational.Peter and Michael Dimond use the irrational option and I choose the rational option.

They will not discuss this subject. Since if I am correct they will be interpreting Vatican Council II heretically. It is the same with the Creeds.

They can correct their public mistake. In future they can interpret, rationally, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 and GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II. It means they no more confuse these invisible cases as being visible. - Lionel Andrades

https://vaticancatholic.com/

Christine Niles interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally, does not accept the Fourth Lateran Council etc, which affirmed EENS with no exceptions ... and is commenting on Divine Mercy