‘A THEOLOGICAL EARTHQUAKE’ IF A CARDINAL INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY STATES AI ON ‘X’
‘A THEOLOGICAL EARTHQUAKE’ IF A CARDINAL INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY STATES AI ON ‘X’
I was not allowed to study philosophy and theology in Rome and Karachi because I believed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).I thought a dogma did not change.Today conservative cardinals are not allowed to interpret Vatican Council II rationally.Why ? For them they would be affirming the dogma EENS- in the original. They are not allowed to say that Ad Gentes 7 is aligned with EENS and LG 8, 14. 16 etc are not practical exceptions for AG 7 or EENS.
Vatican Council II rational, the baptism of desire rational and EENS rational, are prohibited. This is the understanding the Vatican has with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Islamic and other countries. So all bishops have to interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally, deliberately or…
Pope Leo too has to interpret the Council and Catechism irrationally (i.e. LG 16 is a physically visible case in 2025-2026). The irrational interpretation is acceptable for the Vatican-Israel Joint Commission on Theology and related subjects. The political Commission is now under the Dicastery for the New Ecumenism at the Vatican (Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity).
This Dicastery interprets Unitatis Redintigratio, the Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, irrationally by confusing what is implicit as being explicit. So invisible cases mentioned in UR 3 are projected as being visible exceptions for the Ecumenism of Return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.Being ‘saved in imperfect communion with the Church’ is not hypothetical and invisible for this Vatican department.
1. For me Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) is in harmony with the Athanasius Creed (all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation).Meanwhile invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not practical exceptions for AG 7 or EENS.They do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.
FOR
2. For me, when the Nicene Creed states, ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’, it refers to only the baptism of water. It is visible. It is repeatable. It is known. It does not refer to two or more baptisms without the baptism of water (desire, blood). We cannot give someone the baptism of desire.
3. The Apostles Creed refers to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church. For me, the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today that outside the Church there is no salvation (CCC 845, 845, AG 7 etc).
4. For me, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says outside the Church there is no salvation (845,846) while invisible and hypothetical cases mentioned in CCC 847-848 are not practical exceptions. They exist only in our mind.
5. So in the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q) are not contradicted by hypothetical cases mentioned in 29Q of that catechism.
6. The Catechism of the Council of Trent mentions ‘the desire thereof’ but does not state it is an objective case.
7. So when the Baltimore Catechism mentions the baptism of desire I do not project it as an exception for the dogma EENS.
8. So Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric for me (AG 7) and in harmony with the ecclesiocentric Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.
9. Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus are Christocentric and do not contradict Vatican Council II which is ecclesiocentric.
10. So the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II rational. There can only be an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church. There can only be traditional ecclesiocentric mission based upon the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.Inter-religious dialogue is part of ecclesiocentric mission, upon which depends the Proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation ( Quas Primas), with the non separation of Church and State, to save souls from Hell.
Since Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and in harmony with the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass, there no more is the traditionalist-liberal division. The Council is no more liberal. So the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II will be there at every liturgy and rite.
The Vatican needs to clarify their position on these points. Otherwise there was an impediment in the election of Pope Leo at the last conclave. He was in heresy and schism with Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, all interpreted irrationally in public and so schismatically.
He has also accepted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston. It states that
That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member…- 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston
Library : Letter from the Holy Office Concerning …
This is heresy contradicting the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms and Church Councils.
Pope Pius XII, the Holy Office (CDF) and the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing, confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.
The same mistake is made by Wikipedia in its entries on Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyism, Fr. Leonard Feeney, St. Benedict Center, baptism of desire etc.The error needs to be corrected by the Vatican.
Tragic Errors of Leonard Feeney | EWTN
The mistake is also there in other entries of the EWTN on line.
EWTN’s Leonard Feeney on 'No salvation outside the Church'
Leonard Feeney on 'No salvation outside the …
EWTN’s No Salvation Outside the Church
Author: Fr. William Most
No Salvation Outside the Church | EWTN
Is There Salvation Outside the Church?
Author: Fr. William Most
Is There Salvation Outside the Church? | EWTN
EWTN’s interpretation is also irrational like that of the pope and the college of cardinals. To continue with this error is dishonesty.
So the Oath of Office of a bishop is meaningless if he supports heresy and schism seen in the 1949 LOHO. He is a modernist. Canonically, he is not permitted to hold office. He must affirm all de fide teaches. This means he must affirm the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS etc, without exceptions.
According to AI on ‘X’, if Pope Leo interprets Vatican Council II rationally there is likely to be a schism from the Left in the Catholic Church. We do not know who will be where. Will EWTN still remain in the Catholic Church?
Also if a cardinal interprets the Council honestly, AI states, it will be ‘a theological earthquake’. - Lionel Andrades