In recent months, some bishops and clerics have tried to advance a theologically defensible conservative interpretation of Vatican II, something to counter the extremist views of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and a group of like-minded quasi-schismatics, who in addition to rejecting the “Bergolian” magisterium have taken a position that’s hard to distinguish from pure and simple rejection of the council’s teachings. Bishop Robert Barron, for example, has spoken of attacks on Vatican II as a “disturbing trend,” and Thomas Weinandy, former executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the USCCB, has chastised Viganò for challenging the council’s authenticity.- Massimo Faggioli, The Remains of Vatican II,Commonweal
Massimo Faggioli is still hiding the truth. There can be two interpretations of the Council , one with a rational premise and the other without it and the conclusion of the Council will be different.I have mentioned this before to him and he has not contradicted me.But he does not want to discuss it.Similarly Bishop Robert Barron knows that there can be two interpretations of Vatcan Council II and both the interpretations cannot be Magisterial at the same time. He knows that the interpretation of the Council by the popes and Massimo Faggioli are irrational and the rupture with Tradition is artificial.But he and Faggioli do not want to mention it in their articles and talks . -Lionel Andrades
The Remains of Vatican II
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/remains-vatican-ii
___________________________________________
JUNE 14, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic. This point has not been touched by Archbishop Vigano, Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler.
... Archbishop Viganò accepts the validity of the Second Vatican Council. Such clarity dramatically reduces the need for me to explain the extent to which I agree or disagree with him on other aspects of the case, because every Catholic: (a) Must accept the validity of an ecumenical council, including everything it teaches explicitly on faith or morals; but (b) Can still have his or her own opinion about the wisdom of particular pastoral initiatives and about the results of the efforts to implement them (which, in any case, are well beyond the ability of a council to control).-Jeff Mirus
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/archbishop-vigans-comments-on-vatican-ii/
Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted the validity of Vatican Council II but considered it a heretical Council. I agree, that if the Council is interpreted with the false premise it will be heretical, schismatic and non traditional. But if the false premise is avoided then the Council supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and Vatican Council II is dogmatic. This point has not been touched by Archbishop Vigano, Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler. I have asked for clarifications but none are coming forward.
Understandably, they have not covered this points, since Pope Paul VI and the popes who followd, have interpreted the Council as a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church. So at one time, the Magisterium has to be wrong.The popes today are explicitly contradicting the popes of the past, on a faith issue - exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The issue is not pastoral. The present popes are using the New Theology, based upon a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents. The Magisterium over the centuries avoided this false premise. There was no New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger,over the centuries.-Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Viganò’s comments on Vatican II
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/archbishop-vigans-comments-on-vatican-ii/
_________________________
JUNE 11, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades