So what if Dietrich von Hildebrand and Teilhard de Chardin had certain views ? At Vatican Council II they needed a concrete theology to make the change. They had to be specific and real in the documents of the Council. The personal views at large of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger were not enough.They had to produce material which would be accepted by the conservatives and traditionalists

  

So what if Dietrich von Hildebrand and Teilhard de Chardin had certain views ? At Vatican Council II they needed a concrete theology to make the change. They had to be specific and real in the documents of the Council. The personal views at large of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger were not enough.They had to produce material which would be accepted by the conservatives and traditionalists.

When Pope Benedict or Pope Francis quote Vatican Council II the traditionalists respond by saying that the Council is not traditional. That's all. They  say that the Council contradicts EENS. That's all. The liberals respond, "Yes it is true."

That is the end of the dialogue.

Both groups agree that the Council is a break with Tradition.

It is the end of any dialogue since conservative Catholics do not know that the Council contradicts Tradition because a subtle false premise was used.

The same false premise was accepted by conservative Catholics when it was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. 

Unknown cases of the baptism of desire were projected as known and practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. 

Invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance were projected as visible exceptions to EENS as it was known to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.

Pope Pius XII ignored the error and so did Pope John XXIII.

Pope Paul VI ignored the error and Dietrich von Hildebrand, John Davies and Archbishop Lefebvre did not mentiom it. 

The subtle error had got through.

• So we must talk today about the false premise, it is something real and concrete in Vatican Council II.It has to be identified before it can be eliminated.
• It is the liberals and Masons who must talk about Rahner,Congar and Ratzinger and try to distract us from the false premise.-Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 21, 2020

Why are Dr. Taylor Marshall and Anthony Flanders still talking about Rahner, Kung and De Lubac, let the liberals do it.So what if Rahner, Kung and De Lubac were there at Vatican Council II.So what if they held various concepts ? Since if we do not use their false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Council returns back to Tradition to pre-Vatican Council II times.We go back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the missionaries of the 16th century

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/12/why-are-dr-taylor-marshall-and-anthony.html