There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II.It is responsible for 'the Vatican moment' which Rorate Caeili mentions

Rorate Caeili refers  to an unusual Novus Ordo Mass as 'the Vatican moment', when there is nothing in Vatican Council II which says the Mass should be offered in this way.
Those who have politicised Vatican Council II and use it as a slogan for change  could attribute this Mass to Vatican Council II.
But Vatican Council II was a symbol of change for the Catholic Church since it was possible for an objective error in the 1949's to be inserted into the text of the Council
This was 'the Vatican Council II moment'.The 'spirit of Vatican Council II ' draws upon this factual error , which is unknown still, to most people.

 

IMPRIMATUR FOR VATICAN COUNCIL II
May  be a cardinal or bishop would not give Vatican Council II an imprimatur.

1. Since there is a factual error in Lumen Gentium 14.
2.Since the factual error was made in the 1949 Letter to the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with an irrational inference, the Council is 'full of' hypothetical passages which the Vatican Curia interprets as being explicit, objectively seen.

Here is the error in the Letter of the Holy Office.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

 

The error was repeated in Vatican Council II.

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14

 

Let me explain.

Since being saved in invincible ignorance was considered explicit, it was inferred that these, allegedly objective cases, were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So it was concluded every one needed to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism) except for those who are saved in invincible ignorance etc.

So Lumen Gentium 14 clarified that those who know about the Church, 'whosoever, therefore, knowing ', had an obligation to enter the Church and to remain in it to avoid Hell.

Those who were ignorant, it was inferred (like the natives in North America before the missionaries went there) did not have an obligation to enter the Church. They would be saved in invincible ignorance.

So this is a new theology based on an objective error, that of being able to see or know people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and in invincible ignorance etc.

On this point a cardinal could object to giving the imprimatur to Vatican Council II.

 

I think the imprimatur can still be given, in spite of the mistake, since LG 14 refers to hypothetical cases.Finally, hypothetical cases are no exceptions to EENS ( with or without the baptism of water).

However there is a clear mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II which originated from the Baltimore Catechism.In all this we can see America emerging as a superpower and the American Church influencing the Catholic Church, in a negative way. The aim seemed to be,eliminate the dogma EENS.

Cardinal Cushing was known in public, to have meetings(dinner/lunch) with members of the Freemasons in Boston, the B'nai B'rith etc.

At Boston in 1949 they could draw on the Baltimore Catechism as a reference.Since this American catechism placed being saved with 'the desire of' in the baptism of water section and calling it a baptism.Why?The baptism of water is visible and repeatable but the baptism of desire (BOD) is not.In faith we know those who have received the baptism of water are on the way to Heaven, we cannot say this of the BOD since we do not know of any BOD case.

EXCOMMUNICATION NOT LIFTED

So the conservatives at Vatican Council II were at a disadvantage. Since the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was still not lifted and neither any pope from Pius XII to Paul VI supported Fr.Leonard Feeney.Nor did they oppose Cardinal Cushing saying he was irrational, non traditional and in heresy. Cardinal Cushing had the support of the Jewish Left in Boston and the new state of Israel which supports the Freemasons,Zionists, communists and the rest of the Left, the one world religion people.-Lionel Andrades


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-vatican-ii-moment-priest-incenses.html
 

 http://blog.messainlatino.it/2016/02/le-ceneri-nella-caffettiera.html