When they say that we must do away with Vatican Council II, they simply have to re-interpret the Council without the false premise and so they do away with the false interpretation of the Council. It is so simple that it seems unbelievable.

 When they say that we must do away with Vatican Council II, they simply have to re-interpret the Council without the false premise and so they do away with the false interpretation of the Council.

It is so simple that it seems unbelievable.

For example, if Lumen Gentium 16 is a problem then it means look at LG 16 anew.

O.K someone can theoretically be saved outside the Church but in reality there is no such person known to us. So LG 16 does not contradict Tradition ( Feeneyite EENS, Athanasius Creed etc).It refers to an invisible case in 1965-2020.

Follow up with LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.

Vatican Council II does not contradict St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine on the strict interpretation of EENS and there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Once we affirm the strict interpretation of EENS we are back to the old Mission theology, the old ecumenism of return and 16th century EENS of the missionaries of that time.

All this comes about without formally having to get rid of Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades