When a priest says that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case in
2024 he is indirectly saying that outside the Catholic Church there is no
salvation ( Ad Gentes 7).He is affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)
according to Vatican Council II ( LG 16 is not an exception for AG 7 and EENS).
He is affirming the dogma EENS and the old Catechisms on exclusive
salvation, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846).
So the priest is not a liberal or traditionalist since he does not
reject Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and neither
Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).
For Fr. Sebastian Vazakhala mc, the co-founder, with Mother Teresa, of the Missionaries of Charity Contemplative Brothers, Rome, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case in 1965-2024.It is the same for the other M.C priests in this community, who maintain a home for elderly men.
It is situated in the parish of Sant Agapito, Prenestina, where the Parish
Priest is Fr. Paulo Boumis. For him too Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a
hypothetical case only. So LG 16 is not an objective exception for Ad Gentes 7,
Vatican Council II, which says all need faith and the baptism of water for
salvation, from Hell.
This is also the consensus view of Fr. Francisco, Fr.Martin and the priests at the church San Leone 1, off via Prenestina, near where I live.
This would also be the understanding of Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 15, 16, UR
3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, for the Vicar General and Auxiliary Bishops at the Rome Vicariate.
Since it is common sense. We cannot see or meet someone saved in invincible
ignorance and without the baptism of water. So this should also be the
understanding of Lumen Gentium by the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI).
So they are all in agreement with me when I accept and interpret Vatican
Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally, without confusing
what is implicit as being explicit, subjective as being objective, unseen as
being seen.
DECEPTION
Interesting. Since Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, pulled up Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano for not accepting Vatican Council II with Lumen Gentium 16 etc, not being explicit exceptions for Tradition. He had to accept Lumen Gentium 16 etc, as does the cardinal, i.e. they are allegedly explicit, seen and personally known examples of salvation outside the Church in 2024.This is irrational but only with this irrationality can Tradition be made obsolete. Only in this deceptive way the former nuncio to the USA could be faulted at the recent trial for schism.
If the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, members interpreted
Vatican Council II rationally like me, they would be indirectly affirming the
dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. For me these
Church Documents have no ‘exceptions’.
The DCF members would then be affirming Tradition like Archbishop Carlo
Vigano and they could be liable for excommunication, according to the present
irrational philosophy ( invisible people are visible) and theology ( outside the
Church there is known salvation) of the DCF.
But for Cardinal Fernandez to excommunicate, defame and calumniate
Archbishop Vigano officially, based upon an irrational interpretation of
Vatican Council II could be a legal issue.
Presently the Prefect of the DCF does not affirm the dogma EENS, the
Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition since for him there are alleged ‘objective
exceptions’ in Vatican Council II. This is a violation of Church law. Affirming
Church teachings is obligatory for a cardinal.He is rejecting de fide teachings in the name of an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. So he is also rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally and which is the only moral option he has.
Cardinal Fernandez has used a deceptive and irrational interpretation of
Vatican Council II at the schism-trial, demanding that the archbishop accept it
and suggesting that it is magisterial.
Only a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II could be Magisterial.
He has not made this known publically. This becomes a secular, ethical
issue.
In 2003, when I spoke to Fr. Sebastian Vazhakhala m.c he was not willing
to affirm the dogma EENS since Lumen Gentium 16 was an exception for him. In other
words, it referred to a visible and known case in our reality. Now he knows that
Lumen Gentium 16 is an invisible case and so is not an exception for Tradition. LG
8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases for him. So now he is saying the same thing as me.
So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS i.e.
the EENS of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. This has to be acknowledged
publically by Cardinal Fernandez and the DCF. – Lionel Andrades
MARCH 16, 2024
We are all saying the same thing when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally
