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?
This was magisterial in 1949 and 1965.The excommnication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was still not lifted.Neither Rome nor Boston affirmed the traditional interpretation of the dogma as it was known in the 16th century.
So the Council until today is interpreted as a rupture with Tradition since a faulty premise must produce an irrational and non traditional conclusion.
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.
Lumen Gentium 14 says those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved.Since the 1949 Letter suggests that being saved in invincible ignorance refers to a known case.For the ecclesiastics it referred to someone known,saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So the new doctrine is only those who know need to enter the Church for salvation.Not every one in general needs to do so.Not every one in general with no exceptions needs to enter the Church.This was how the dogma was known to the 16th century missionaries, whom Pope Benedict referred to in an interview with Avvenire.
This is the new theology approved by Pope Benedict XVI. It is based on the irrational premise of knowing people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Then it is concluded that these 'visible-invisible cases' are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
Now I can randomly choose passages in Vatican Council II which should not be there.They should not have been placed in the text. Since they refer to invisible cases and so are not exceptions or relevant to the orthodox passages which they accompany.
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.-Unitatis Redintigratio 3( Decree on Ecumenism)
This passage above is meaningless with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So why was it mentioned here ?
Since the Council Fathers assumed this was a reference to a known case.
Hypothetical cases were in principle assumed not to be hypothetical.So in this way they reject an ecumenism of return based on the dogma EENS.
But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.-Unitatis Redintigratio 3
Whom do we know among the Protestants, Pentecostals, Orthodox Christians and other Christian denominatations who is in Heaven baptised with water, but without Catholic faith, i.e the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church?
Whom do we know?
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.-UR 3
This passage has been placed here since the Church Fathers assumed there was salvation outside the Church according to the mistake in the 1949 Letter. The unknown case of the catechumen was assumed to be a known case of salvation outside the Church. So with this premise they placed this passage in Unitatis Redintigratio.
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.-UR 3
The Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using somone known in the Protestant or Orthodox Church who is saved without Catholic faith? Can there be such a person physically seen and known?
No. However the Council Fathers were in principle assuming invisible cases were not invisible in time and space.
Similarly Nostra Aetate 2 infers unknown people are known exceptions to the traditional salvation theology and ecclesiology.Ad Gentes 11 assumes there are known cases of non Catholics saved without 'faith and baptism' but with 'seeds of the Word'.
So the Nicene Creed has been changed. It always referred to the baptism of water as the known baptism('I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'). Now we have known cases of being saved with the 'seeds of the Word', 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3), 'good and holy things in other religions'(NA 2) etc.So the concept of one baptism in the Nicene Creed is no more traditional.
In the Nicene Creed most Catholics pray 'I believe in one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' and mean, in which there are many forms of 'known baptisms' which exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is a new doctrine.
So by mixing up what is invisible as being visible there is a non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II in 2016. The Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries.For Pope Benedict XVI, who protected the New Theology, this is just ' a development'.
So with the New Theology all these Church documents were interpreted as a break with theology.It was done with one simple stroke.
Now with one simple stroke we can undo the New Theology and go back to the old ecclesiology. It's simple. Interpret all these Church documents without the irrational premise and conclusion.
Vatican Council II for example would be in harmony with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries. It would not be a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.Since we would be back to the old ecclesiology there could only be an ecumenism of return. Based on the old ecclesiology a priority must be the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.The Nicene Creed would only refer to one known baptism, the baptism of water.