Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition ?

 

Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of the hermeneutic of continuity?

For Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition for me it has a continuity.

Rorate Caeili posts articles by Don Pietro Leone since he is politically correct with the Left and interpets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.

Where does the Council contradict an ecumenism of return to the Catholic faith ? He could not preseent even one example.

Unitatis Redintigatio refers to only hypothetical and speculative cases. They exist only in our mind.They cannot be practical exceptions to the past ecumenism of return based upon the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Where does the Council contradist EENS and is a rupture with Tradition ? Don Pietro Leone and Rorate Caeili could not present even one example.

LG 8, LG 14,lG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc cannot be practical exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS in 1965-2021.They don't exist in our reality. There are no such cases.

Why should Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture instead of the hermeneutic of continuity?.- Lionel Andrades