POPE LEO AGREES WITH ME : NO DENIAL FROM THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE
11.03.2025
POPE LEO AGREES WITH ME : NO DENIAL FROM THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE
Pope Leo agrees with me. Lumen Gentium 16 is a hypothetical case while Ad Gentes 7 is aligned with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Athanasius Creed. LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not explicit exceptions for AG 7, EENS etc. Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and traditional with the hermeneutic of continuity with the Syllabus of Pius IX and the Catechisms of Baltimore, Pius X and Trent. The lex orandi is Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
There is no denial from Paulo Ruffini the Prefect of the Dicastery for Communications and neither from Archbishop Rino Fisichella pro-prefect for the New Evangelization Section of the Dicastery for Evangelization.
Cardinals Cupich, Roche, Zuppi, Baldasarre, Hollerich, Grech, Radcliffe and McElroy agree with me. LG 16 refers to a physically invisible case in 2026. This changes the present interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The books on Vatican Council II by Rino …More
I really don’t understand you. You post a lot on this platform. But you speak as if this visible vs invisible distinction is the only issue with the VII council. How does solving this make every thing else fall into place?
It is at the heart of the problem in the Church. With invisible baptism of desire (LG 14) there are no excplicit exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, of the Council of Florence 1442. There are no exceptions for Tradition.
Now LG 14 and LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) are projected as explicit exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. So the Syllabus of Pius IX and the Catechism of Pius X are made obsolete.Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. It is a 'revolution' in the Church.
But when LG 14 and 16 etc are implicit and not explicit, then Ad Gentes 7 is aligned wih EENS and the rest of Tradition and LG 8, 14, 16 are not exceptions. So Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and traditional with AG 7 and it is not schismatic with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
So the liberals can no more cite the Council to justify Amoris Laetitia, the LGBT agenda etc. The Church once again becomes traditional since Vatican Council II has become traditional. Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Fernandez must affirm the dogma EENS with no exceptions or they continue to remain in public schism on the Athanasius Creed etc.
So it is important how we interpret LG 14 and LG 16 , is it visible and an exception for EENS and Tradition or is it invisible and so not a break with Tradition. Of course, they are invisible cases. So the Council supports the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass and not the ecclesiology of the synods.
Even bishops Fellay and Galaratta of the SSPX agree with me. What about you ? Does Lumen Gentium 16, being saved in invincible ignorance , refer to an invisible case in 2026 for you ? If your answer is YES then you also are on the same wavelength.
If fellay agrees i have no problem, what I have a problem is people associating with false prophets like "no one have the entire truth" antipope Leo. Even false prophets say chocolate is sweet, but to me everything they say is blah, blah to me.
You have not answered the question. For Pope Leo and Bishop Fellay Lumen Gentium 16 being saved in invincible ignorance refers to a physically invisble case. Also for you ?