It is time Catholics expose the irrationality in Don Alessandro's new theology and new doctrines on ecumenism and his interpretation of Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.He must be asked to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS as it was known in the 16th century

Don Alessandro Minutella has said that the Lefebvrists and integralists do not accept Vatican Council II and there is no more only an ecumenism of return while he does not say that all Lutherans are on the way to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church.

It is this liberal priest who must be asked to affirm Vatican Council II and the ecumenism of return. For me the text of Vatican Council II supports an  ecumenism of return I showed in comments on Gloria TV. There was no denial from Don Alessandro or Giuseppe Fallaci of Radio Domina Nostra.

Instead it was Giuseppe Fallaci who quoted text from Unitatits Redintigratio, the Decree on Ecumenism in Vatican Council II, which supported an ecumenism of return.

There was no theology in Vatican Council II for Don Alessandro to reject an ecumenism of return.

He could not provide any text in our communication.

So it is the Society of St. Pius X priests who should ask Don Alessandro to please affirm Vatican Council II.

Do not interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and an ecumenism of return. As I do not do so as a Catholic.

I have asked Don Alessandro to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma EENS,which is central to the teaching on ecumenism, and he will not. I have supported the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries. For me the dogma EENS is not contradicted by anything in Vatican Council II.

Don Alessandro cannot say that he affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries. Since for him Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. So there is no more an ecumenism of return for him.

It is because the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refers to objective cases and they are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS for him,Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture.

For me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases in 2016 and so they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS; there is no connection,betwen them, for me.So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. I can affirm the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla nulla salus. Since the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradictionfor me.

Don Alessandro cannot affirm the baptism of desire in harmony with Vatican Council II. Since the baptism of desire is explicit and so it would violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. So he would simply reject the dogma EENS, like the liberals and the present  magisterium.

Now to support his irrationality and rejection of Tradition he is asking the Lefebvrists to affirm Vatican Council II  in which hypothetical cases of LG 16 etc are visible. So in this way the Council will be a break with the dogma EENS and there will be a rejection of the ecumenism of return due to alleged known salvation outside the Church.

It is time  Catholics expose the irrationality in Don Alessandro's new theology and new doctrines on ecumenism and his interpretation of Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.He must be asked to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS as it was known in the 16th century.

-Lionel Andrades