07.08.2026
Extracts from AI on X at Lionel Andrades' channel.
06.08.2026 Vatican Council II supports the traditionalists, the newspapers must note: apology due to the SSPX
x.com/i/grok?conversation=2085348729851121968
Lionel : The Church cannot interpret the Council irrationally and not apostolically,This makes it a minority view, It is also schism
(Lionel : It is Andrades' discovery but not Andrades' reasoning It is the reasoning of the Church over the centuries which did not confuse what is implicit as being explicit as does Pope Leo who is not magisterial and apstolic on this issue until he interpret de fide teachings rationally, irrespective of the political fall out.
Lionel : It is not a theological opinion. It is an objective fact recognisable by anyone , even a non Christian
Lionel. Interpreting LG 8, 14, 16 etc as being objective cases in 2026 and so practical exceptions for the dogma exrtra ecclesiam nulla salus is not magisterial.
That LG 8, 14,16 etc refer to physically invisible cases in 2026 is a factual statement. It is an objective statement in the sense that we humans cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church. So this is how Catholics see Vatican Council II and interpret it today. However the pope and the newspapers still interpret LG 16 etc as being exceptions for the dogma EENS etc. So they imply that LG 8,14,16 etc refer to non hypothetical cases. Only someone visible and known in 2026 can be an exception for the dogma EENS. So the newspapers cannot go on producing articles on Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise ( LG 16 is a visible case in 2026) and fake inference ( VC 2 is a rupture with th dogma EENS) and fake conclusion ( VC2 is schsmatic and an innovation and revolution in the Church.)
A.I
The epistemic point is correct as far as it goes: no one living in 2026 can produce empirical evidence of a specific non-Catholic who has been saved without faith and baptism. Salvation outside the visible Church, if it occurs, remains known only to God. That is uncontroversial.
Lionel: The invisibility is real and even the pope and the editor of the newspaper would accept it just as you accept it. Once they accept it they have a moral obligation to interpret VC 2 with LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being invisible and not visible cases in 2026.Once they do this there are no exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. There are no exceptions in VC 2 for the dogma EENS. So the Council emerges ecclesiocentric ( AG 7/EENS) and dogmatic (EENS) and traditional. The Council supports the traditionalists. The Council supports the SSPX, SBC, F.I and Ecclesia Dei communities since they already support tradition. The Council-traditional in no way supports the liberals, progressivists and Masons.)
A.I
Lionel, we agree on the basic epistemic fact: the cases contemplated in LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 and similar passages, if they exist at all, are invisible to us in 2026. No one can point to a verifiable living person who has been saved outside the visible Church without faith and baptism. The pope and any newspaper editor would, if asked directly, accept that empirical limitation.
Lionel
When LG 8, 14 16 etc refer to invisible cases and the Council is dogmatic and ecclesiocentric, then 'possibilities of salvation' are not exceptions for Ag 7 and the dogma EENS. The deposit of the faith does not state that theoretical cases must be projected as practical exceptions for EENS. This is not traditional theology. This is a new theology which projects invisible cases, possibilities known only to God, as objective exceptons for the dogma EENs and the Tradition of the SSPX, F.I, SBC etc. There is no new theology to accomodate when LG 8 etc are invisible. What you say would be true, there could be a new theology, a false one albeit when LG 8 etc refer to physically visible cases; when what is invisible as projected as being a physically visible case. Everyone, Il Messaggero and other newspapers in Italy cannot post articles on Vatican Council II with the fake premise.
A.I
Lionel, the core of your latest statement is this: once LG 8, 14, 16 and the parallel passages are acknowledged to refer only to invisible cases, they cannot serve as exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or to the classical dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Therefore any theology that treats those “possibilities of salvation” as having practical force is a new and non-traditional projection of the invisible into the realm of objective exceptions. On that basis you conclude that Italian newspapers have no right to publish articles that rest on the premise that the passages function as exceptions.
Lionel:
It asserts that the possibility itself is real and must be taken into account in the Church’s understanding of her necessity and of God’s action (Lionel You mean this is political and so it has to be taken into account for political left reasons. So with this ruse the dogma EENS has exceptions and is made obsolete. There is a new interpretation of Vatican Council II, which is irrational and so schismatic and upon this irrational interpretation fo the Council excommunications and schism-labels can be issued against traditionalists, whose Tradition is contested by Vatican Council II irrational and political.
Lionel:
Whether one judges that development continuous or discontinuous with prior teaching is a theological judgment (Lionel: The magisterium also called this schism. It is a canonical issue.)
The pope, the cardinals and bishops conferences interpret Vatican Council II irrationally producing schism on EENS for example with the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century. They do not declare themselves to be in schism. But pretend, politically, that they are apostolic and magisterial. For example , Cardinal Ratzinger never interpreted AG 7 in line with EENS with LG 16 not being a practical exception. If he did so, he would be saying VC 2 is traditiona. So he kept quiet on this information. He did not demand that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney be lifted since the Council interpreted rationally supports them and not his friends Karl Rahner, Hans Kung etc).
Incomplete .Please see the original text. It was too long to post here.
- Lionel Andrades