Irrespective of who was present at Vatican Council II and which group he belonged to and what he said or did, the Council is traditional and exclusivist , when LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are interpreted as hypothetical cases only. The Council always has a hermeneutic of continuity

Irrespective of who was present at Vatican Council II and which group he belonged to and what he said or did, the Council is traditional and exclusivist , when LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are interpreted as hypothetical cases only. The Council always has a hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions. There is a harmony with the exclusivist Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

Irrespective of the presence at Vatican Council II of the Rhine Group, Fr.Karl Rahner and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Vatican Council II today emerges orthodox and conservative, when LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc, are seen as theoretical only, they are always hypothetical, and they exist only in our mind. We can accept them in principle (de jure) but they are not defacto known cases in 2024.

This was understood by Fr. Aldo Rossi the former Prior of the SSPX Albano.

It was understood by Bishop Athanasius Schneider when he told Dr. Taylor Marshall that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire.

It was understood by Dr. Taylor Marshall when he confirmed for Schneider, that there were no explicit cases of St.Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire. -Lionel Andrades

APRIL 11, 2024

The Coetus International Patrum did not know that if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to invisible cases in the present time (a fact overlooked in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office) then there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

The Coetus International Patrum did not know that if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to invisible cases in the present time (a fact overlooked in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office) then there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

So the Council returns to Tradition immediately.

With the dogma EENS and the exclusivity of the Athanasius Creed intact there is nothing in the Council-text to negate the non separation of Church and State, the Social Reign of Christ in all legislation, the traditional ecumenism of return, traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic and general orthodoxy.

 The Council is no more liberal. It has the hermeneneutic of continuity with Tradition.

This series does not discuss what would be the conclusion of Vatican Council II, if LG 8, 14, 15, and 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 referred to only hypothetical cases, invisible people in 1965-2024? Instead this series is based upon LG 8, 14, 1, 5, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being examples of physically visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2024.

For example. Lumen Gentium 8 refers to where the Church subsists outside its visible boundaries. For the SSPX priests LG 8 is an exception for the dogma EENS. So they imply that LG 8 refers to a known person saved outside the Church. I do not make this error. LG 8 is always hypothetical for me.

For them Unitatis Redintigratio would refer to a Christian being saved outside the Catholic Church in imperfect communion with the Church, who is known and nameable. For me this is a hypothetical case. If anyone was saved as such it could only known to God. So UR 3 does not contradict the dogma EENS upon which was based the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all legislation, the non separation of Church and State to save souls from Hell and traditional mission and outreach based upon traditional ecclesiocentrism. It is the same Vatican Council II before us but our premises our different and so our conclusions would also be different. 

 - Lionel Andrades

 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/04/crisis-series-20-with-fr-macgillivray.html

I am not saying anything new, in the sense, I am not putting forward a new theology or new theory. I am only pointing out that anyone who interprets LG 8, 14, 15,16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only invisible and hypothetical cases, goes back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology. The Church, so to speak returns to Tradition. This is automatic and immediate.

I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally i.e. LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases only.

So they are not objective exceptions for the ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church; the Church having exclusive salvation. Meanwhile Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation. This was the same message of the Church Councils, which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus ; the Feeneyite version, which did not mention any exceptions.

So for me de facto all non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. I do not separate Jesus from the Catholic Church, His Mystical Body, the Bible tells us.

Hypothetically and with good will I can hope there are exceptions for the dogma EENS, someone saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' or 'with elements of sanctification and truth' found outside the Church, but I could not know of any exceptions. Neither can you know. So there really are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.This is the understanding of everyone, including non Christians.

The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake when it projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. The same mistake was made by Fr. Karl Rahner sj and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger at Vatican Council II and probably ‘the Rhine Group’.

So it is important to note that I am affirming Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) but I am interpreting them rationally i.e. invisible cases are always invisible, Lumen Gentium 16 for example, refers to an invisible person in 1965-2024.

This would be the traditional understanding of the dogma EENS when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally by the Auxiliary Bishops of Rome and the Vicar General. They would be saying the same thing as me. They have an obligation to interpret Magisterial Documents only ethically. 

This would be the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II by my Parish Priest who would then have to affirm the dogma EENS. The Missionaries of Charity priests of Mother Teresa would reach the same conclusion when they interpret LG 8, 14, 1,5 16 etc rationally i.e. these are invisible cases in 2024, they are not visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.

So I am not saying anything new, in the sense, I am not putting forward a new theology or new theory. I am only pointing out that anyone who interprets LG 8, 14, 15,16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc  as being only invisible and hypothetical cases, goes back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology. The Church, so to speak returns to Tradition. This is automatic and immediate.

- Lionel Andrades