Readers of this blog could inform the editors and correspondents of Crux, National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and the Tablet, (whenever they mention Vatican Council II) that the Council can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and the conclusion is traditional.

 

Readers of this blog could inform the editors and correspondents of Crux, National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and the Tablet, (whenever they mention Vatican Council II) that the Council can be interpreted with a Rational Premise and the conclusion is traditional.

Bishop Robert Barron can no more have his television discussions which interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly. He cannot talk about the hermeneutic of continuity of Pope Benedict and then with a False Premise produce a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

Writers like George Weigel and John Allen jr, must also mention that Pope Benedict used the Fake Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. So in all his books, Vatican Council II was interpreted with the hermeneutic of rupture and not continuity with Tradition.

With the Rational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no more a rational progressivist and liberal theology.Since the False Premise is avoided. It is a return to the old theology, the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed.  

-Lionel Andrades