We have new information on Vatican Council II. Times have changed.Some 15 years back I discovered that Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance etc) was always hypothetical. It meant Vatican Council II was not a rupture with Tradition.

 

We have new information on Vatican Council II. Times have changed. 

Archbishop Carlo Vigano’s Tradition is supported by Vatican Council II (rational).Pope Francis justifies his liberalism with Vatican Council II (irrational).Now he wants Vigano to accept Vatican Council II (irrational) and the accompanying liberalism or be declared schismatic.

Instead it is those who do not accept Vatican Council II (rational) and Tradition who are heretical. They, the popes included, are in schism with the Magisterium over the centuries. So Catholics have a moral obligation to reject the political, irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, by Pope Francis. It is dishonest. It is not Magisterial since it is a lie. Pope Francis can only be Magisterial when he interprets Vatican Council II rationally and honestly.

Some 15 years back I discovered that Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance etc) was always hypothetical. So how could LG 16 etc be an exception for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

This was a discovery. It was a Yahoo experience. It meant Vatican Council II was not a rupture with Tradition. It means the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney  made an objective mistake. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for EENS. This mistake is followed today by Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernandez and Archbishop Vigano. This mistake went unnoticed by Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre in 1965.

- Lionel Andrades