The center of the problem is that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is rational and the other irrational. Catholics choose the irrational option. If the Council, Creeds and Catechisms are interpreted rationally the Vatican returns to Tradition. It is the end of their liberalism.

 

The center of the problem is that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is rational and the other irrational. Catholics choose the irrational option. If the Council, Creeds and Catechisms are interpreted rationally the Vatican returns to Tradition. It is the end of their liberalism. This was not known to Pope Paul VI. Since if he interpreted the Council rationally, there would be a return to Tradition and no liberalism.

Pius XII, before him, did not correct the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO). Neither did the popes after him, correct the invisible cases are visible mistake.They confused what was not there as being there. Then they created a new theology which said outside the Church there is salvation, known salvation.

 So the political lobbies sought to consolidate the mistake and called a Council. This was after the birth of the new state of Israel and World War II. Vatican Council II (1965) incorporated the 1949 LOHO-error. Lumen Gentium 16 was seen by the liberals as a visible case of someone saved outside the Church.So it was projected as an objective exception for dogmatic EENS.It was seen as a rupture with dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Fourth Lateran Council II (1215) etc.

We now know that LG 16 always refers to an invisible case. So it never ever was a practical exception for Feeneyite EENS.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) made a mistake in the 1949 LOHO.

So now for those of us, who interpret Vatican Council II rationally, there can only be one interpretation of the Council, it is the rational one. - Lionel Andrades