WHEN POPE LEO AFFIRMS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY HE AFFIRMS FEENEYIT EENS. THE COUNCIL IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC WITH NO EXCEPTIONS FOR TRADITION.
WHEN POPE LEO AFFIRMS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY HE AFFIRMS FEENEYITE EENS. THE COUNCIL IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC WITH NO EXCEPTIONS FOR TRADITION : 98 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
If there is a table before me and I see a chair then my observation is wrong. If I mistake a window for a door then this is an error of observation. It is an objective mistake. This is not philosophy or theology. It is a physically observable mistake. It is a wrong way of physically looking at something. So if 10 people see a table and the 11th sees a chair instead, then his reality is different. It is an empirical mistake. It is a mistake in space and time.
In general people do not make this mistake. They call a chair a chair and a table a table. Observation is normal.
But in 1949 a Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston was issued from Rome. It wrongly suggested that we humans can see someone saved with the baptism of desire. But today we know that we cannot physically see someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. This person would be in Heaven and known only to God. Someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance is not physically visible on earth.
But the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) indicated that being saved with the baptism of desire is an example of salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is someone saved without faith and the baptism of water. It is an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So with a wrong observation the dogma EENS had exceptions. It was made obsolete. EENS could no more say that everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. No more- since there were allegedly known exceptions
.
Now we know that physically we cannot see a baptism of desire case which is an exception for the Athanasius Creed. This Creed says all need to be Catholic for eternal salvation.
Like the Athanasius Creed, also Vatican Council II and Ad Gentes 7 state all need faith and baptism for salvation. All.
Yet the popes, make Vatican Council II LG 8, 16 etc exceptions for EENS. They assume there are exceptions for EENS. This is a wrong observation. There is a mistake in seeing.
So when the Catechism of the Catholic Church says outside the Church there is no salvation (845,846) we cannot mistake CCC 847-848 (being saved in invincible ignorance etc) as being exceptions for CCC 845-846.
So when AG 7 and LG 14 say all need faith and baptism for salvation and the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation let us call it ‘ a blue passage’. Let us underscore it with a blue pen.
When AG 7 and LG 14 refer to someone saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire, let us mark it with a red pen.
It means ‘the red passage’ is not an exception for ‘the blue passage’. In short, ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’.
The red hypothetical passages in LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 do not contradict the blue orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14.
In Vatican Council II, the blue orthodox passages dominate with there being no exceptions in the red passages.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) is saying all need faith and baptism for salvation and we know there are no physically visible exceptions in real life. We cannot see or meet a baptism of desire- case
.
They are not exceptions for the Athanasius Creed.
They are not exceptions for an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So we have a Vatican Council II which is in harmony with the dogma EENS, ‘the strict interpretation’, of the dogma EENS and there could be no exceptions on earth for us human beings.
Vatican Council II tells us that outside the Church there is no salvation. This is old salvation-theology (soteriology). It is the old ecclesiocentrism. It is the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, repeated in 1965.
So when Pope Leo accepts Vatican Council II he is ecclesiocentric. He is saying outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. There are no physically visible exceptions. He is saying like Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, ‘you are either a Catholic (practically, de facto) or damned’, to Hell.
When Pope Leo affirms Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church he is affirming Feeneyite EENS. This is the EENS of the three Church Councils which defined EENS and did not mention any exceptions.
This is the rational way of reading Vatican Council II without the mistake in observation of the 1949 LOHO. This is the only honest choice Pope Leo has.
There is also the common irrational way of reading Vatican Council II with the mistake of the 1949 LOHO. They start with LG 8, 14, 16 etc and then claim Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is salvation. They also cite UR 3 and NA 2.
Then there is GS 22 and LG 8, ‘susbistit it’, for them. So the Council, they say, is a break with the dogma EENS.Outside the Church there is known salvation for them
Of course, they imply or assume, that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to explicit cases. Only explicit and visible cases can be exceptions for the dogma EENS in 1965-2025.
But we known that an invisible person cannot be an exception for EENS and LG 8, 14, 16 etc are always hypothetical. They exist only in our mind. Someone must exist in our reality to be an exception for EENS.
For example, if there is a box of apples and an orange in the center of that box, then that orange is an exception since it is different but also because it is there in that box at that time. If it was not there it would not be an exception.
LG 14 and LG 16 do not exist in our human reality, but this is the irrational way of reading Vatican Council II by the liberals, conservatives, traditionalists and sedevacantists. It is with the mistake of observation.This is how Wikipedia interprets Vatican Council II but so also EWTN.
So we have two conclusions.
1. Outside the Church there is no salvation with LG 16 being physically invisible
2. Outside the Church there is salvation; known salvation, in particular cases, with LG 16 being physically visible.
Ethically, the pope, cardinals and bishops can only interpret Vatican Council II rationally like me and then say outside the Church there is no salvation. LG 16 is invisible on earth in 2025 for everyone.
The irrational interpretation is not an option now that we know that we have a rational choice.
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is not liberal. The ecclesiology of the Church before and after 1965 is now the same. Vatican Council II (AG 7) tells us Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims are outside the Church and without salvation in the present times. Membership in the Church is necessary for salvation from Hell.
This is the Vatican Council II ecclesiology for Holy Mass in Latin and the vernacular. There can only be a ‘Vatican II liturgy’ with the Council interpreted rationally.The liberal-traditionalist division is not there anymore. The division depended upon the false observation.
There is nothing in UR 3 and GS 22 to contradict AG 7.
In real life I cannot see or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire this October in Rome. Neither can I see someone saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), with good will (GS 22) and ‘seeds of the Word’.
The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen People and I do not know of anyone who will be saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church, where the true and salvific Church, ‘ subsists’(LG 8).
I do not know of anyone who will be saved outside the Church because ‘God is not limited to the Sacraments’ (CCC 1257). The norm for salvation is ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7).
This is the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II by a pope, which is apostolic and magisterial. It is in harmony, for example, with the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.
We are back to the ecclesiology of the Jesuit saints Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Robert Bellarmine…
It means when Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally they were not apostolic and magisterial.
The Council had the hermeneutic of discontinuity with the past. It would be the same for Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.
They were apostolic and magisterial but not on Vatican Council II.
Pope Leo has to clarify that he interprets Vatican Council II rationally and then he will be apostolic and magisterial on the Council and Catechism.
It means the College of Cardinals must interpret the Council rationally before a conclave, to elect a pope, who is apostolic and magisterial.
How can you have a pope who interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally when there is a reference to the baptism of desire?
The pope must choose the rational premise (invisible people are invisible), rational inference (invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16 are not visible exceptions for the dogma EENS) and traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric with AG 7 and has a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Error of Pope Pius IX).
The Church has returned to the past. - Lionel Andrades
THE INSTITUTE FOR ECUMENICAL STUDIES AT THE ANGELICUM IN ROME INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY AND NOT RATIONALLY ? : 97 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
97. The Institute for Ecumenical Studies in Rome at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally?
The Institute for Ecumenical Studies at the Angelicam is based upon irrational and heretical, Vatican Council II irrational instead of Vatican Council II rational. The Council interpreted rationally is aligned with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), of the Council of Florence 1442.The Institute was originally founded by a Jewish Left rabbi who interpreted the Council liberally and politically.
The Dominican priest-professors know that Vatican Council II is being interpreted irrationally. But they continue with the error to avoid the Anti Semitic charge and so not be able to teach anymore.
There is big money being put into the Catholic Church to prop a false ecumenism based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
This Institute and the Rector and faculty at the Angelicum, in general, do not affirm the Athanasius Creed. They change the understanding of the Nicene Creed with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II ( LG 14, LG 16 etc).
Changing the understanding of the Creeds is fist class heresy in the hierarchy of truths ( Ad Tuendum Fidem of Pope John Paul II). It is schism with St. Dominic Guzman and the pope of his time.
Since I interpret Vatican Council II rationally and the Council emerges ecclesiocentric, I have not been allowed to study there. With the Council interpreted rationally there can only an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church. Inter-religious dialogue would be part of traditional ecclesiocentric mission.
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church tell us outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not know any Christian today who is saved with imperfect communion with the Church ( UR) and so is an objective exception for AG 7 or the dogma EENS. Pope Leo accepts Vatican Council II but he interprets it irrationally. His irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II is divisive and unethical for a pope.
According to Vatican Council II, rational, i.e. AG 7 is not contradicted by UR 3, King Charles is outside the Catholic Church and on the way to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
96. With Vatican Council II irrational bishops are on the offensive and with Vatican Council II rational they are on the defensive?
If you get the Lefebvre-Kwasniewski-Vigano theology out of the way sparks would fly in the dioceses. Cardinal Arthur Roche could no more put down the Traditional Latin Mass. The TLM could not be closed in the name of the Lefebvre’s Vatican Council II. It is the New Theology of the bisbhops, cardinals and the pope.
Now the New Theology has been identified .We simply avoid it.
Orthodoxy dominates in Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. Morally, there is no other choice for Cardinal Roche.
With Vatican Council II irrational the New Missal is schismatic.
With Vatican Council II rational, the Council is aligned with the Roman Missal, and Vatican Council II, liberal and the bishop are schismatics.
It is the same Vatican Council II before us but depends, if LG 16 is invisible or visible- the conclusion changes.
For Cardinal Roche, LG 16 is a visible case and so it is an exception for the dogma EENS. For me it is an invisible case and so is not an exception for the dogma EENS. AG 7 has a continuity with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and LG 16 does not contradict AG 7.
So it is the same Council but there are two interpretations. There also are two interpretations of the Creeds, the old Councils and the Catechisms.
Knowing this - why should the Latin Mass groups allow the bishop to remain liberal, heretical and schismatic in the diocese.
The Bible, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are Feeneyite on EENS. The baptism of desire refers to an invisible case in 1949-2025 for me. It does not contradict Feeneyite EENS. For some reason Kwasniewski and Vigano do not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS. They choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like Pope Leo and not rationally like me. They choose to interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally, like the bishops and the pope. They interpret Church Documents with the New Theology. LG 16 is a visible example of salvation outside the Church in the present time for them.
So if we put aside the LKV- New Theology, it is the Latin Mass groups which can make the demands on doctrine and theology. They can expect the bishops of Charlotte, Detroit , Fort Worth etc to affirm the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc which are no more contradicted by Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally.
With Vatican Council II irrational the bishop and the Cardinal Roche are on the offensive.But with Vatican Council II rational they are on the defensive.
Then there nomore is a new magisterium of Cardinal Roche. All this was not known. It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich and Alice Hildebrand, Attila Guimares, Plineo de Correa, Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari, Archbishop Thuc and Joseph Natale.
So today liberals and conservatives interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. They use the new theology, based opon an objective error of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. Subjective cases of the baptism of desire are assumed to be objective. Then the new theology says outside the Church there is salvation; known salvation, in particular cases. So everyone does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation (1949 LOHO).
There cannot be a development of doctrine by confusing what is implicit as being explicit. LG 14 and LG 16 refer to implicit cases. There cannot be a development of doctrine by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then say ‘this is how the Church interprets it’ or this is ‘ a nuanced interpretation’.
95. The diocese of Charlotte will continue to take a beating with the Lefebvre-Kwasniewski-Vigano interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
Yes the diocese of Charlotte will continue to take a beating with the Lefebvre-Kwasniewski-Vigano interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Latin Mass groups in Charlotte must continue to affirm Tradition of the Roman Missal but they must avoid the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the bishop and Lefebvre-Kwasniewski and Vigano.
Without this common interpretation the bishop cannot demand an end of the Latin Mass. The bishop will know that the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal is contradicted by Vatican Council II as interpreted by Lefebvre and the sedevacantist bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas.
Canonically and legally to remain a bishop, he must affirm Vatican Council II rationally like me and also affirm the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal, like me.
So at the Novus Ordo Mass he must affirm the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal and the Council and Catechism interpreted only rationally.
I would tell the bishop to inform the people in his diocese that presently they interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference. I avoid this error. The Curia is not Catholic when they state that LG 16 refers to a visible person in 2025 and so they infer that LG 16 is a visible exception for the dogma EENS. There is no such known person. Yet this is the foundation for the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, by the bishop and curia in Charlotte. The newspapers and TV do not know this.
The Latin Mass groups can dialogue with the bishop 1) inform him about the L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II and the 95 questions and Answers ( updated ) on Gloria TV.
It is important to note that with the Lefebvre, new theology, they are telling the bishop:-
1. T1. The Latin Mass groups reject Vatican Council II and so are in schism.
2. T2. The Roman Missal, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors are contradicted by Vatican Council II which the bishop and the congregation affirm-.
Instead the Latin Mass groups and Kwasniewski and Vigano must tell the bishop in Charlotte:
1 The bishop is in schism since he rejects Vatican Council II. rational and the Catechism (rational).3. T2.The Roman Missal and Tradition in general are aligned with Vatican Council II (rational).4. the Catechisms ( rational). But the Creeds(ir-rational) asheld by the bishop and Curia in Charlotte, is not apostolic and magisterial.The Missal of Pope Paul VI which is good and appreciated is not aligned with the exclusivist ecclesiology, the ecclesiocentrism of the Roman Missal, and in general the Creeds, Council and Catechisms, interpreted rationally.So the bishop would come across as a modernist.
Charges of heresy and schism are a scandal.
The rejection of the Athanasius Creed, in the original in public, is heresy and schism.
He can change all this by interpreting LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, rationally and so in harmony with the Tradition of the Latin Mass groups. He would no more be a liberal. - Lionel Andrades
21.10.2025
MUSLIMS WHO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY ONLY ARE ALLOWED TO STUDY AT CATHOLIC PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITIES : 93 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
94. Muslim imams and professors at European secular and pontifical universities?
Bishop Hermann Glettler of Innsbruck, Austria, rejoices in the training of Muslim Imams at the Catholic university, says the head line on Gloria TV. Muslims are allowed to study at the pontifical universities. They also can study philosophy and theology and then teach it to Catholics and others The condition is that they must interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents irrationally. In this way they produce a fake break with Catholic Tradition, which is approved by the political-left.
On the other hand I am not allowed to study philosophy or theology at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University, Rome. I affirm Vatican Council II, rational which is in harmony with the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and all the Catechisms on outside the Church there being no salvation.
At the Giorgio La Pira Library and Research Center in Palermo, of the FSCIRE the writings of religious leaders of the Taliban, Jamat e Islamic, Jamiat e Ulema e Islam, Pakistan, Anjuman Khatm Nabuvat, Pakistan etc are available in Palermo.It is approved by the European Union. Some of the Muslim religious leaders, whose writing are available at this library in Palermo could be labeled terrorist, a few years back. They support the persecution of the Ahmediyya sect in Lahore, Pakistan. The Ahmediyyas, who consider themselves Muslim, but Mohammad is not the last prophet for them, believe that the tomb of Jesus is in Kashmir and Ahmediyas make a pilgrimage to the Roza Bal. The Ahmediyyas, also known as Qadianis are missionary. They are persecuted and many are killed for preaching their religion in Pakistan.Many are in jail under the Blasphemy Laws.
The FSCIRE of Alberto Melloni which supports this library, interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. So the FSCIRE ( Bologna School) funded by the Italian Government, projects Vatican Council II as a liberal break with Catholic Tradition.
Dr Adnane Mokrani is a Muslim theologian, Professor of Islamic Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University (PUG) in Rome and Senior Fellow at the Fondazione per le scienze religiose (FSCIRE) and the Giorgio La Pira Library and Research Center in Palermo. He was a former Professor at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies (PISAI) in Rome (2009-2020). He holds a PhD in Muslim-Christian Relations from PISAI. He interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, like the professors of the Gregorian University and PISAI. So was probably eligible for scholarships from Propaganda Fide, Vatican. Mine was discontinued. I affirmed the dogma EENS which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II which I interpret rationally.- Lionel Andrades
60. Vatican Council II indicates Mohammad is lost forever and Muslims in general, are going to the same place?
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. Mohammad died without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II indicates that he is lost forever just as Dante saw him in inferno. So the Catholic Church’s teaching on Islamism, before and after Vatican Council II, has not changed.
Jesus is the only Savior of the world, God wants all to be untied in the Catholic Church (CCC 845), the Catholic Church is like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CCC 845), outside the Church there is no salvation (CCC 846).
The Quran has insufficiencies, error and superstition (Dominus Iesus, Pope John Paul II).
Dante saw Mohammad in Hell for founding a new religion which was not the will of God. Mohammadans are oriented to Hell, the popes and saints have told us over the centuries, as does the Council and all the Catechisms. – Lionel Andrades
VATICAN COUNCIL II INDICATES MOHAMMAD IS LOST : …
Bishop Glettler Rejoices in Training Muslim Imams at Catholic University
Bishop Glettler Rejoices in Training Muslim …
21.10.2025
CARDINAL VICTOR MANUEL FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM WITH THE FAKE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II: 93 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
CARDINAL VICTOR MANUEL FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM …
20.10.2025
OBLIGATION FOR CARDINALS GRECH, AND HOLLERICH AND BISHOPS BATZING AND BODE TO AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II: CANONICAL ISSUE: 92 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
OBLIGATION FOR CARDINALS GRECH, AND HOLLERICH …