SEDEVACANTISM BASED UP0N VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NOW OBSOLETE : THE COUNCIL IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC
SEDEVACANTISM BASED UP0N VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NOW OBSOLETE : THE COUNCIL IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC. IT SUPPORTS THE ROMAN MISSAL : QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
1. What is the discovery ?
The discovery is that Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and has a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Council of Florence 1442), the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. There is continuity with all the catechisms on outside the Church there is no salvation.
2. Could you be specific ?
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. AG 7 is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation (846). Meanwhile LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2025. They are always hypothetical.
So they are not objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not explicit exceptions for AG 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
This is the discovery. LG 16 refers to an invisible case. An invisible person cannot be an exception for Feeneyite EENS. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake. It projected invisible case of the baptism of desire etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition.
So the conclusion is: in Heaven there are only Catholics (AG 7, CCC 845,846 etc).
The Church is the new people of God (Nostra Aetate 4).
3. So the Church still teaches outside the Church there is no salvation?
Yes. This is the magisterial teaching of Vatican Council II and the Church. This has been the apostolic teaching. So the post-Conciliar Church is in harmony with Tradition. There is a continuity and not rupture.
4. It is looking at Vatican Council II differently?
Yes. When the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned we must read this as always being a hypothetical case. So they are not exceptions for the orthodox passages, they accompany. They also do not contradict the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. Similarly, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not explicit. We must not confuse what is subjective as being objective.
5. Lumen Gentium 16-invisible is the discovery?
Yes. We cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance in 2025. So when LG 16 is not physically visible, it does not refer to a known person saved outside the Church in 1965-2025.So how can it be an exception for the dogma EENS?
This is the discovery.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) returns to Tradition and LG 16 is not an explicit exception for AG 7, EENS and an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X.
6. So the Council is saying outside the Church there is no salvation?
Yes. Since Ad Gentes 7 is the norm for salvation and Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 16 etc are not exceptions for the norm. A possibility known only to God is not an objective exception for EENS or an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church in 2025.
7. What makes Vatican Council II irrational?
When the pope, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology, they imply that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to visible cases. They would have to be physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church, for them to be exceptions. An invisible person cannot be an exception for EENS in 2025.
But we know that there are no such visible cases. There are no exceptions for EENS.
8. The problem is one of observation?
Yes. What is invisible is confused as being visible. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14).This is an error of observation. An empirical error. What is implicit is confused as being explicit. It is an error in philosophy which spills over into theology.
The false premise is: invisible people are visible in the present times. The false inference is: LG 16 refers to an invisible case of salvation saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. The false conclusion is: there are known exceptions for the dogma EENS, which has become obsolete.
So the New Theology is: outside the Church there is salvation, there is known salvation. So all do not need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, is the bad conclusion. Tradition is made obsolete (Catechisms of Trent, Pius X, and Baltimore…)
9. So the Council interpreted rationally has no exceptions for EENS and the Roman Missal?
None. We return to the old ecclesiology with Ad Gentes 7 while LG 8, 14 and 16 are not explicit exceptions. The lex orandi is the same at every Mass, rite and liturgy because Vatican Council II is traditional.
10. What about the Novus Ordo Mass?
Presently at the Novus Ordo Mass they use the Missal of Pope Paul VI which is based upon Vatican Council II, irrational. They can choose to use the Roman Missal at the Novus Ordo Mass in future. So the homilies will also be different.
The New Ecumenism is based upon the Council having exceptions for EENS. The New Theology and Ecclesiology comes with there being ‘explicit exceptions’ for EENS.
11.So we return to the old theology- outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation- in the diocese and parishes?
Yes. We have to affirm the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally only ( AG 7 is not contradicted by LG 16).
Morally, we are obligated to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally.
The Athanasius Creed and the Council of Florence 1442, canonically, can no more be rejected in the name of Vatican Council II irrational ( LG 16 is an explicit example of salvation outside the Church and so an exception for EENS).
12. Sedevacantism based upon Vatican Council II is obsolete ?
Yes. Since the Council can only be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viagno was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II irrational, which Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Fernandez accepted. But the Italian archbishop did not affirm Vatican Council II rational ( LG 16 is implicit and not explicit).
We return to the old theology at every Holy Mass when Vatican Concil II is interpreted rationally. The Council determines the lex orandi.- Lionel Andrades