It's un- precedented in over 50 years. All the reports on Vatican Council II have not reported on this.There is a philosophical error in Vatican Council II. It was not detected. It makes the Council a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known in the 16th century.When the philosophical error is side stepped, Vatican Council II emerges new and different.It is in perfect harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Feeneyism is the missing link.If we can put aside being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire for a moment, and then look at Vatican Council II, it is a different Council.This will be uncomfortable for those who interpreted the Council as 'a revolution' or with 'a new spirit.'
Atila S.Guimaraes and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms and Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no salvation outside the Church.1
This is the break off point!
I have side stepped the Rahner, Kung,Ratzinger,Kasper new theology. I choose not to look at Vatican Council II with their lens. For them the baptism of desire in principle refers to a known case and is an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS. So LG 14, LG 16 etc would be a rupture with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X...Not for me.
The FSSP,the present Vatican Curia,the St.Benedict Centers and the SSPX,like the liberal cardinals are all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.They interpret the Council assuming invisible cases are objectively visible in 2016.This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction and they all can correct themself.
Yes there are lay and religious Catholics who are aware of the error and have proclaimed it. I assume they proclaim the Catholic Faith without the common confusion, privately.If they proclaimed it in public as priests they could be suspended by the present magisterium supported by the political Left.
The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. We see here that the living Magisterium is irrational. Their conclusion is non traditional and heretical. They can choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally if they want to. 2
The liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II could only be made with the philosophical error.This interpretation was made by assuming what is hypothetical is not hypothetical.Invisible cases were considered visible.The liberals' famous case of the catechumen who allegedly was known is really unknown.With this false premise(visible cases of the baptism of desire etc) a non traditional conclusion (there is known salvation outside the Church so the dogma has exceptions)was created.
This non traditional and heretical conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II was rejected by the traditionalists.However it was accepted by the magisterium, the liberals and the Left.3
1949 ERROR PACKAGED IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
The magisterium made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr., Leonard Feeney.It inferred that the baptism of desire was relevant and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The cardinals wrongly inferred that there were known cases of the baptism of desire.
This mistake from 1949 was then incorporated into the text of Vatican Council II.
When interpreting Vatican Council II, it is important to assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical. In this way we eliminate the New Theology and return to the old ecclesiology of the Church.It's simple.
Of course this error is human error and it cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality.4
This is unprecedented.Objective errors have been discovered in Vatican Council II.I am referring not just to theology.Faulty reasoning has created a new theology.There are errors made in principle.As a norm it seeps throughout the Council-text.
In principle the Vatican Council II Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible.
In principle they assumed people in Heaven are objectively visible on earth.
In principle they assumed that we can know of non Catholics on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
In general, as a norm, the Principle of Non Contradiction was violated.
The baptism of desire; the case of the unknown catechumen who sought the baptism of water but died before it was given to him,is always an invisible case. It was not so for the Council Fathers.They assumed this catechumen was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it was a visible case for them.It had to be visible to be an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS.Their premise was wrong.How can there be a visible case of this catechumen being saved?
The Council Fathers violated basic laws of logic and philosophical reasoning.
They were following the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which did away with the centuries old interpretation of EENS.The simple Letter from a cardinal put aside the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils. It was put aside by assuming the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible instead of invisible cases.This was a new precedent in the Church. An innovation in theology.It created a new doctrine which has been placed in Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.5Now that we know where the mistake is we can correct it. We can turn the Church around.We can place it back on its old and rational theological rails.