Vatican Council II has a heretical theology but in a peculiar way it can be interpreted non heretically

Vatican Council II has a heretical base, with the New Theology.However the Council can be interpreted  rationally and traditionally without making any change in the text.

When the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II used the irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) they were supporting heresy. So the Council has a heretical basis for its New Theology.It is propped by an irrational premise and inference.

This error of assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical runs through the Council like a theme ( LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc.It is human error and not the work of the Holy Spirit. So in this sense the Council is not magisterial.

However in this particular case, a peculiarity on this issue, is that even with the false New Theology, the Council can be interpreted rationally and traditionally.It requires no change in the text.

Since the hypothetical cases, which the Council Fathers assumed were non hypothetical, are still hypothetical for us.They can only be interpreted as being hypothetical. There is no other rational choice.

 So even though Pope Benedict, Cardinal Richard Cushing, Fr. Karl Rahner sj, the other Jesuits and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, were at the Council with heresy and irrationality, we can undo their bad work by simply interpreting  LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being theoretical, speculative and non objective in 2019.They are not examples of personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. There is no non Catholic who is anonymous, and known to be saved with Catholic faith.Literally, there is no Anonymous Christian,of Fr. Karl Rahner sj, saved outside the Church as a Catholic.

So we can have a rational, traditional and non heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II, which is not a rupture with the strict interpretaton of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Nor does it contradict the centuries-old exclusive ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.Nor is it a break with an ecumenism of return.
____________

Therefore, all must be converted to Him...and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door...

By means of this activity, the Mystical Body of Christ unceasingly gathers and directs its forces toward its own growth (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The members of the Church are impelled to carry on such missionary activity by reason of the love with which they love God and by which they desire to share with all men the spiritual goods of both its life and the life to come.

Finally, by means of this missionary activity, God is fully glorified, provided that men fully and consciously accept His work of salvation, which He has accomplished in Christ.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

________________________

With the majoirty of people on the way to Hell without faith and baptism(AG 7), the social and political priority must be the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State.

So the Council is really saying that all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pentecostals,Orthodox Christians and atheists are on the way to Hell, unless they covert into the Church as members.They need faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.There are no practical exceptions mentioned in the text of the Council.

This is the teaching of the Church and its Magisterium according to the text of Vatican Council II,interpreted rationally.It is not necessarily the teaching of  the ecclesiastics at the Vatican or that of the present two popes.

It is also magisterial since it is in harmony with the past popes and Church Councils on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The present two popes are in a schism with the past popes and they can only interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion to create a non traditional conclusion.




With Cushingism we have the hermeneutic of rupture with the past with Feeneyism we have the hermeneutic of continuity.

So for the political Left, this non heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II would really be rigid, fundamentalistic, hate,Anti Semitic and other expressions of their fascism, to control the thinking and beliefs of Catholics.They openly express themselves and feel they have a right to tell Catholics what they are allowed to believe and that our religion, in some ways, is inadequate for them.

However the Catholic priest who holds to this rational interpretation of Vatican Council II would not be offering Holy Mass heretically and so sacrilegeously.
Theologically, he would not be in a rupture with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors,Church Councils on  EENS etc) and neither does he have to reject Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades