We are back to the past with Vatican Council II : the original problem was philosophical

 I was telling someone yesterday that the original problem in the Church was with philosophy and not theology. The philosophical problem spills over into theology.

If I say someone or something is invisible and you say it is visible we have two different conclusions. If something invisible is mistaken as being visible, then it is an error of observation, an empirical error, and an objective error. This is philosophy.

Then when invisible people are assumed to be visible a New Theology is created. It says outside the Church there is salvation.

It is no more extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation).

So the theology is based on an error in reasoning. It is irrational.

The saints Thomas Aquinas, Augustine etc were rational.

The mistake in reasoning was there in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO). It projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So with this error the dogma EENS was made obsolete.

The error was repeated at Vatican Council II. It is as if the Council was called to implement the error in the 1949 LOHO. It projected invisible cases of the BOD and I.I as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.So with this error the dogma EENS was made obsolete.

Why were LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22  mentioned in Vatican Council II? These are all hypothetical cases. They do not contradict the dogma EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors?

Now if we see LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only theoretical cases; they exist only in our mind, then the Council does not contradict the dogma EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).It did not mention any exceptions.

Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 support EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology. LG 14 is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church there is no salvation.

So the Church today has returned to the pre-Vatican Council II theology and philosophy, without the 1949 LOHO mistake. There is no more a pre and post mistake .There is no more a pre-Vatican Council II theology. There is no more ‘a revolution’, in the Church or ‘a new revelation’. We do not have ‘a new magisterium’, a term used by Cardinal Arthur Roche. We are back to the ecclesiology of the 16^th century Roman Missal of the Latin Mass. This is the ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo Mass today.

The CDF (Holy Office) officially made an objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO. He can now re-interpret Vatican Council II rationally.

When the BOD and I.I are interpreted rationally there is no change in the Nicene Creed, ‘I believe in one baptism' (and not three or more known baptisms).

There is no change in the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation. This Creed should no more be obsolete for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

There is no change in the Apostles Creed. The  'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church..', still teaches that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation; there is no known salvation. - Lionel Andrades