Austrian professor of theology does not want to discuss this issue

 I was telling the Austrian seminarian here in Rome yesterday, that all their professors were interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise to keep their teaching jobs in Vienna. One of these professors of theology was  critical of Alexander Tshuggel.The professor said that Alexander's understanding of other religions was not that of the Church today, after Vatican Council II.

Alexander responded to the professor's media-interview by saying that his Catholic faith and understanding of other religions, was based upon the Bible.

This was not sufficient for the theologian.He continues to interpret Vatican Council II as contradicting the Bible.It is normal for him.

I e-mailed the professors of theology at the university.However I interpreted LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II as not contradicting the past exclusivist theology of the Athanasius Creed.This would have been new for them. 

The professor of course did not reply.He had to teach the same deception; the politicised version of Vatican Council II, if he wanted to remain a Catholic professor in Austria.

He could not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and in harmony with the Biblical interpretation of the popes over the centuries.

Too bad Alexander in his defence did not cite Vatican Council II without the false premise.It would harmonise the Council with the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

Even the editor of Life Site News, John Henry Weston, has to interpret the Council with the false premise. Otherwise he would be affirming 16th century EENS and the traditional understanding of other religions and the Pachamana.

The Left would protest if Weston does not go along with the deception.So like the Austrian professor of theology, he  does not want to discuss the issue. -Lionel Andrades