Since Vatican Council II Pope Benedict prevented a true and rational theological interpretation being known. He controlled theology in the Church and it was the false theology. I do not get pleasure in writing all this. But it has to be said.
Vatican Council II after 1965 was a failure for the liberals and did not have a rupture with the past but it depended upon the Church hierarchy to say it.They had to keep it secret or make it known. They kept the truth hidden.
Don't get me wrong. The Masons and enemies of the Church hijacked the Council and used a false interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, to create a rupture with Tradition. So when the Council is read by Catholics today it is a rupture with Tradition.
But this is an illusion.
Since the liberals made a mistake.
They were helpless.
Then depended on an irrational premise to re-interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition and the whole Church fell for the ruse.
But the success of the trick depended on Catholics not knowing the truth. Not finding out about the false premise.
So here was the important role of Cardinal Ratzinger.Then later as Pope Benedict he seems to have intentionally kept the truth hidden. But let us give him the benefit of the doubt since even popes from Paul VI did not seem to know.
But now the ruse is ended.
We have found the missing link. We know what makes Vatican Council II a rupture or a continuity with Tradition and like turning a switch on or off we can change the interpretation.
We do not have to depend on the Magisterium to choose to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
Pope Benedict controlled the false theology so he was trying to get the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and to accept the non traditional conclusion for canonical status.
He did not tell them that the Council could be interpreted without the irrational premise and it would not be a rupture with Tradition and this would be acceptable to him. No. He was careful not to say this.
But he gave himself away in March 2016 when he said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century there was a development, a rupture with Vatican Council II.That was the break I needed.There was no more ambiguity on this issue.
He was telling us that he accepted Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. He had accepted a new version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which was not the same the 16th century version. So there were two magisterial interpretation of EENS, his and the one in the Middle Ages.
He did not say that there were also two interpretations of Vatican Council II his and that of a lay man and that the lay man has the support of priests and an archbishop.They agree with him.
All that lay man in Rome is basically saying is that hypothetical cases are simply hypothetical.
This is what Cardinal Ratzinger did not announce as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instead he allowed Archbishop Lefebvre to be excommunicated.
Even years after the excommunication he kept this truth hidden.Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS and so there are no exceptions to EENS and neither are there any mentioned in Vatican Council II.
I repeat there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.
I could repeat this line a hundred times.
There are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.
For those Catholics who understand what I am saying this is staggering.
Other Catholics cannot understand what I say since they have been so conditioned to believe that possibilities and hypothetical cases are known exceptions to EENS.
Now we know.
Imagine the SSPX announcing this truth in public that hypothetical cases are not known exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2018.Obviously. Every body knows this it would be said. This is common knowledge.
But this was the secret which was hidden for 50 years.
This was the secret about EENS which was hidden for some 70 plus years.
It completely changes the understanding of Vatican Council II and the conditions necessary for a religious community to receive canonical status.-Lionel Andrades