The traditionalists and liberals interpret Vatican Council II, with Cushingism; with the false premise. This is an objective error.

 

The traditionalists and liberals  interpret Vatican Council II, with Cushingism; with the false premise. This is an objective error. They are confusing what is invisible as being visible. Then they imply that there are known and visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times. Then they produce a New Theology which says outside the Church there is salvation, there is known salvation.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Catholic Tradition, are obsolete. Vatican Council II becomes a ‘revolution’ in the Church, a new revelation.

I avoid this mistake. For me, LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases, always. This is common sense. You do not have to be a Catholic to realize this. We obviously cannot meet or see any one in 2023 who is saved outside the Catholic Church, with the baptism of desire (LG 14), invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11) or good and holy things in other religions (NA 2).

But for the liberals and traditionalists, LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, refer to physically visible cases in the present times. They refer to non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and baptism (AG 7 etc). So for them LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and an ecumenism of return to the Church.

For me, LG 8 etc are not a rupture with EENS and the rest of Tradition, in particular the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.

So we have two interpretations. For them Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and for me it is a continuity with Tradition.

Now after reading this they may say that LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc are also hypothetical cases for them. True. But when they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS, they imply that these are visible cases, practical exceptions for EENS.

Both the Lefebvrists and progressivists are not affirming Feeneyite EENS. So they are still saying that LG 8 etc refer to physically visible cases. Invisible people cannot be exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.

Instead they are affirming the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible and practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. So the LOHO concluded that outside the Church there is known salvation and so not everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church, for salvation from Hell.

This contradicts the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) which said the opposite- all need to enter the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.

So today for the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Una Voce, Coetus International, La Nuova Bussola, Gloria TV, the organizers of the Synods, the Anglican Ordinariate and cardinals Kasper, Koch and Semeraro, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. 

We have unity in this error among the liberals and conservatives.I avoid this mistake.

The New York Times interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, when their correspondents confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood, as being visible- but the conservative Catholic apologetic magazine in Italy, Il Timone, makes the same mistake.

The editors of the newspapers Il Messaggerro and Correspondenza Romana of Roberto dei Mattei are irrational in their interpretation of the BOD, BOB and I.I. So they are also irrational on Vatican Council II and the Creeds. They do not deny it.

All these publications, including those of the Society of St. Pius X, should be objecting to the appointment of the 21 new cardinals next month, because these cardinals interpret Vatican Council II irrationally producing new versions of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. This is contrary to Canon Law. Since according to Canon Law a juridical person must affirm the teachings of the Church. The Creeds in their original, is obligatory.- Lionel Andrades