Be aware of the crude interpretation of Vatican Council II done by Christopher Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Atila Guimares and others

One should not superficially read Vatican Council II and crudely interpret it as a rupture with Tradition, so Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14) would be negating the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and also supporting it at the same time.The error in this reading lies in not discerning that this was the mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston and it was the error repeated by the liberal theologians at Vatican Council II.



1) One interpretation of Vatican Council II is that of the liberal theologians which is supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) and the two popes.It interprets hypothetical cases1 as being non hypothetical.They are interpreted as being known examples of salvation outside the Church.Pope Benedict XVI alluded to this in March 2016(Avvenire).He was still trying to prop up the error of his friends.He reiterated that there was known salvation outside the Church and suggested that Vatican Council II mentions this.

Since the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are examples of known salvation for him, there are passages which contradict EENS and there are other passages  which are orthodox and do not contradict EENS.This is how Pope Benedict,cardinals Muller and Ladaria,archbishops Pozzo and Di Noia, cardinals Burke and Brandmuller,Catholic Answers and Church Militant TV interpret Vatican Council II and continue the reasoning of the 1949-Letter.

2.The second interpretation has BOD, BOB and I.I as not being known exceptions of salvation outside the Church.They are not concrete cases in 2017. They are accepted as possibilities.Being possibilities they cannot be exceptions to EENS.They can be accepted as speculative and hypothetical cases but no connection must be made with the old ecclesiology and Feeneyite EENS.
So when we read the passages in Vatican Council II which mention hypothetical cases 2 we must not crudely and superficially interpret them as being exceptions to Tradition or exceptions to the orthodox passages.
This is a rational reading of Vatican Council II.We do not mix up hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical, invisible people as being visible,possibilities as being explicit and objective in real life.Then Vatican Council II would not be saying,as Pope Benedict did in March 2016(with reference to  Vatican Council II and EENS)that there is salvation outside the Church.Since humanly speaking,there cannot be known salvation outside the Church.In the same way, Pope Francis cannot tell us that the Argentinian couple who have divorced and remarried and who are mentioned in the Acta Apostolica Sedis(AAS) will be going to Heaven or are already saved.How can he know? How can he judge an exception to the general rule on mortal sin? Similarly Pope Francis cannot say that someone outside the Church, a Protestant or Buddhist,is a saint and  and will not be going to Hell.How can he know of an exception? If there is an exception it can only be known to God.
So when we read Vatican Council II it is important not to read it with 'the double meaning',the 'for and against orthodoxy'method.This was the personal inference of Rahner and Ratzinger and the other liberal theologians.

So go ahead and affirm Vatican Council II.In no passage does it mention a single case of known salvation outside the Church.
If it is possible that someone will be saved outside the Church in 2017 then it is also possible that someone will not be saved.Possibilities are like thin air.They are not concrete with reference to EENS and the old exclusivist ecclesiology.
So we must be aware of the crude interpretation of Vatican Council II done by Roberto dei Mattei, Christopher Ferarra , Atila Guimares and others in their books on Vatican Council II.They use the 'double approach' of Rahner and Ratzinger.This was possible by mistaking BOD, BOB and I.I as not being invisible but visible and then inferring further that they excluded the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
When you read Vatican Council II interpret the passages as I do.Vatican Council II is then no more a rupture with Tradition.

Know that there was an in principle error  made in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and it can be avoided when reading Vatican Council II.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.-Lionel Andrades


1.
Baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of ones own( I.I).

2.UR 3, NA 2,GS 22,LG 16, LG 8 etc

DECEMBER 3, 2017

Repost : No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/repost-no-denial-from-cardinal-ladaria.html

DECEMBER 4, 2017

Vatican has no objections

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/vatican-has-no-objections.html