AUGUST 28, 2024 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano cannot appeal against the trial which accused him of schism and excommunicated him since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. They all interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally and not rationally.

 

 AUGUST 28, 2024

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano cannot appeal against the trial which accused him of schism and excommunicated him since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. They all interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally and not rationally.

 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano cannot appeal against the trial which accused him of schism and excommunicated him since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. They all interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally and not rationally.

For them LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible cases in 2024.

For me LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically invisible cases in 2024.

So for them Vatican Council II has practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism while for me they are not exceptions. They are simply hypothetical cases.

Since Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition (EENS etc) for them, they imply that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3 NA 2, GS 22. Only visible cases can be practical.

So in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q (invincible ignorance) would contradict 27 Q and 29Q (other religions are not paths to salvation, outside the Church there is no salvation), for them- but not for me.

For them 29 Q would be a visible case of someone saved outside the Catholic Church but for me it is an invisible case. They are irrational and I am rational. For them the Catechism contradicts itself but for me there is no contradiction.

Similarly they would accept the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston which indicates that invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Similarly Lumen Pentium 16 (invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14(being saved with the baptism of desire) would be exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors- but not for me.

Since I premises are different are conclusions are different. For them invisible people are visible and for me they are invisible only.

For them invisible people are visible exceptions for the dogma EENS. For me invisible cases cannot be exceptions for the dogma EENS.

-Lionel Andrades