A POPE WHO INTERPRETS ALL THE CREEDS, COUNCILS AND CATECHISMS IRRATIONALLY AND SO DISHONESTLY – AND DOES NOT DENY IT- CANNOT BE APOSTOLIC AND MAGISTERIAL ON THIS ISSUE.
31.01.2025A POPE WHO INTERPRETS ALL THE CREEDS, COUNCILS AND CATECHISMS IRRATIONALLY AND SO DISHONESTLY – AND DOES NOT DENY IT- CANNOT BE APOSTOLIC AND MAGISTERIAL ON THIS ISSUE.
There is no denial from the Vatican Dicastery for Communication over the last few months.
The Holy See Press Office does not say that Pope Leo interprets Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise in harmony with an ecclesiocentric Roman Missal.
With the Rational Premise Archbishop Vigano and Cardinal Cupich will have the same ecclesiocentric interpretation of Vatican Council II.The SSPX would be aligned with the National Catholic Reporter .
The interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Italian daily newspapers IL Messaggero and Avvenire are in schism when they choose the Irrational Premise. So there is an objective error in their reports on the Council.
Wikipedia’s articles on Vatican Council II, the baptism of desire, Fr. Leonard Feeney, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and EENS are obsolete.
A conservative cardinal is now in a Vatican jail. He has been sentenced by Vatican judges who interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly and politically like Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Pope Leo.
Cardinal Semeraro and the daily Avvenire must inform the people that that the Italian Bishops Conference, interprets Vatican Council II with an Irrational Premise ( invisible people are invisible, LG 16 is a visible case in 2026), Irrational Inference ( invisible cases of LG 16 etc are explicit examples of salvation outside the Church and so exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed, Catechism of Pope Pius X , 24Q,27Q etc).This is dishonest. Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions for the dogma EENS in 1965-2026.
The reports on Vatican Council II by Italian journalists, in general are false. Since the Council is ecclesiocentric and orthodox with the Rational Premise ( invisible people are invisible in 2026), Rational Inference ( invisible cases of LG 16 etc are not exceptions for the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology) and Traditional Conclusion ( Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric with AG 7 not contradicted by hypothetical cases of LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.).
LEX ORANDI MUST AFFIRM EENS
So at all rites and liturgies the priest must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. So the lex orandi cannot exclude beliefs of the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is no more contradicted by Vatican Council II.
Protestants are outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (AG 7). Most people die outside the Catholic Church without ‘faith and baptism’ and so are oriented to Hell.
How can a pope who interprets all the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally and so dishonestly- and does not deny it- be apostolic and magisterial on this issue?
From where does he get the right to offer Holy Mass?
The Vatican Secretariat of State does not tell the embassies and ambassadors to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally. The Bishops Conferences in Poland, Hungary, France, England, Switzerland… are all interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally for political reasons.
No journalist is correcting the factual mistakes made in the interpretation of the Council, by Rahner and Ratzinger and the popes from Paul VI to Leo XIV. Even Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano chooses to interpret the Council with a Fake Premise.
With the Rational Premise Archbishop Vigano and Cardinal Cupich will have the same ecclesiocentric interpretation of Vatican Council II. Cupich could possibly leave the Church in a public schism, and take many others with him.
How can Cardinal Cupich offer the Novus Ordo Mass when he cannot affirm the dogma EENS of the Council of Florence 1442? EENS has no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. The baptism of desire (LG 14) refers to a hypothetical and invisible case in 1965-2026.How is Fr. James Martin sj, allowed to offer Holy Mass?
Fr. Martin does not affirm the Athanasius Creed which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
Vatican Council II ecclesiocentric ( AG 7 is not contradicted by LG 16, the dogma EENS is not contradicted by LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NAS 2, GS 22 etc) is in harmony with the ecclesiocentric Roman Missal. But this is not the ecclesiology of the New Missal of Pope Paul VI. To change the interpretation of the Creeds and deny the dogma EENS is heresy and schism.
How was Pope Paul VI declared a saint when he did not affirm Vatican Council II rational and non political. He created schism with de fide teachings of the Church.
I interpret Vatican Council II rationally and non politically. I interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. This is apostolic and magisterial. It is not schismatic with for example, the Magisterial of the 16th century.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is aligned with all the catechisms on EENS. Pope Leo cannot say the same.
For Pope Leo in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q is contradicted by 29Q and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848-contradicts 845-846. This is because hypothetical and invisible cases for me are non hypothetical and visible in the present times for the pope. So our conclusions are different.
But if he would use the Rational Premise, Inference and Conclusion, the Catechisms would not contradict each other and neither itself. The Rational Premise creates unity and coherence- Lionel Andrades