BISHOP JOSEPH STRICKLAND INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY : PASTORAL LETTER DOES NOT CORRECT …

BISHOP JOSEPH STRICKLAND INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY : PASTORAL LETTER DOES NOT CORRECT SPECIFIC ERRORS

19.11.2025
BISHOP JOSEPH STRICKLAND INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY : PASTORAL LETTER DOES NOT CORRECT SPECIFIC ERRORS

In Bishop Joseph Strickland’s Pastoral Letter 1 on Vatican Council II he does not mention that he and the popes from Paul VI to Leo XIV have been interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. He has also accepted the irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston.
He mentions general principles in his Pastoral Letter, like follow Tradition and there are no changes in doctrine. But the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) has changed for him. There are exceptions in Vatican Council (LG 14, 16 etc) for the Council of Florence 1442 on EENS. The Councils which defined EENS did not mention any exceptions.

The bishop, whom I admire, also interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, like the Communio, liberal theologians. They interpreted implicit cases of the baptism of desire as being explicit exceptions for EENS. Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Balthazar, Lehmann made this objective error to produce a New Theology. Romano Guardini did not correct the mistake in the 1949 LOHO but followed it with the others.
So in Tyler, Texas the Curia does not affirm the Athanasius Creed and EENS in the original i.e. without known exceptions in the present times. We cannot see or meet someone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire who could be exceptions for an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Unitatis Redintigratio 3, in the Decree on Ecumenism refers to an invisible case, always. So we cannot know of anyone who is saved in imperfect communion with the Church.We cannot say that a particular person will be saved outside the Catholic Church, with goodwill (GS 22). We do not know of a particular person who will be saved outside the Church, where the true Church exists (subsists) and it is known to us.(LG 8)

It is based upon the irrational and so liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II, by confusing what is invisible as being visible, that the USCCB Doctrinal Committee supports homosexual unions etc.
If this is brought to their attention they cite Vatican Council II irrational and liberal which is schismatic. It is a break with Tradition. This is also how they justify the Eucharist being given to the divorced and re-married, abortion etc.
Bishop Strickland has not told the USCCB that there is a Vatican Council II irrational (LG 16 visible) and a Vatican Council II, rational (LG 16 invisible) and the conclusion is different.
The USCCB and the popes chose the irrational option.

VMPR RADIO

The interpretation of Virgin Most Powerful Radio (VMPR) 2 of Vatican Council II is irrational and so liberal. They have a choice but the host Terry Barber, “does not want to get into trouble”, to use his own words in the interview with Fr. Chad Ripperger.
Bishop Strickland could issue a Pastoral Letter on the 1) Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II and 93 Questions and Answers (Updated) 3.

For me, Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. While invisible and implicit cases of LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not objective exceptions for AG 7 or the dogma EENS.This is common sense. They do not contradict the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.
For the USCCB , LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are objective examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2025. This is what they imply when they project LG 16 etc as objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 2Q,27Q).Invisible people cannot be exceptions. Implicit and subjective cases cannot be exceptions for EENS in 1949-2025.But for Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez LG 16 is an exception for EENS. This is also the mistake of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Bernard Fellay and the sedevacantist bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas. They interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and then blame the Council.
This is the common irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.

With Vatican Council II, irrational they make the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition obsolete. Then they say that if the Council can make the dogma EENS etc obsolete, with known exceptions, then why cannot we have new teachings on homosexual unions, abortion etc.
If Vatican Council II could change the ecclesiology of the Church, said Cardinal Walter Kasper then why cannot the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married.

With the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the USCCB and Bishop Robert Barron told Ben Shapiro, a Jew, that he did not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. But with the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, Shapiro would need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation from Hell (AG 7, CCC 846 etc).
How can the American cardinals and bishops hold their public office when they interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally and so schismatically and there is no denial from them?

Cardinal Muller in the interview with Bishop Barron said Vatican Council II is aligned with Aquinas. This would be Vatican Council II aligned with Tradition. This is an important point in the Pastoral Letter of Bishop Strickland.-Lionel Andrades
1
THE TRUTH ABOUT VATICAN II - Pillars of Faith

2
VMPR-ASV-show - Virgin Most Powerful Radio

3
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II? Why is it different it is being asked?
What is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of …

CARDINAL VICTOR MANUEL FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM WITH THE FAKE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II: 93 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
@Lionel Leslie Andrades

Lionel Andrades
E-mail : lionelandrades 11@gmail.com