The future of the Catholic main line Church is Tradition.Since ethically Vatican Council II must only be interpreted rationally and not irrationally. But when it is interpreted rationally the conclusion is traditional.

 

The future of the Catholic main line Church is Tradition. Since ethically Vatican Council II must only be interpreted rationally and not irrationally. But when it is interpreted rationally the conclusion is traditional.

Whether we like it or not the conclusion is always traditional. Whether we are liberals or conservatives the conclusion is always traditional.It supports the ecclesiology of the old Roman Missal.

The Council over 50-plus years was being interpreted dishonestly with a False Premise. The conclusion was non-traditional. It was accepted by the liberals and opposed by the conservatives. But both used the same Irrational Premise.

Now we know that the Council can be interpreted with a Rational Premise. This is a discovery. It is a breakthrough. So there are today two interpretations of Vatican Council II. This is new information.

In one interpretation 1) LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are interpreted as being hypothetical and invisible people and in the other 2) they are objective and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times.

The popes, cardinals and bishops choose interpretation 2 while I choose interpretation 1

There are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2022 for us human beings. If anyone was saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance it would not be physically visible for us. So when Vatican Council II  mentions Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance)  it is always a theoretical and speculative case.Always. It cannot be anything else. It cannot be a practical exception for extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16^th century. These are "zero cases" in our reality said the US apologist John Martignoni. Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson and Fr Stefano Visintin osb agree with him.They would choose intepretation 1

I choose interpretation number one so LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22  etc refer to invisible cases in our reality and so they never were, and neither are, objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 which did not mention any exceptions).

So the popes, cardinals and bishops cannot continue with interpretation N.2, It is irrational and unethical.They must choose interpretation N.1 which is honest. Its conclusion is traditional.

In future Catholics must only choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally. There is only one option. It is  obligatory.

When the Council is rational then future popes will have to be traditionalists only.The people will only choose the honest option. There cannot be a development of doctrine with the Rational Premise. Liberalism in the Church comeswith the Irrational Premise.The Irrational Premise was used in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO).It produced a New Theology which says outside the Church there is salvation, there is known salvation. This interpretation is now obsolete.Also common sense tells us, as it did for the saints and popes over the centuries, that LG 8,14 and 16 are always theoretical.

The interpretation of Vatican Council II by the popes from Paul VI to Francis, with the New Theology of the 1949 LOHO is now obsolete. We have a choice.The laity have a choice.The faithful must not choose the false option.

The old interpretation of the Council has been replaced.The Church has ‘gone forward’.-Lionel Andrades