Henri Du Bac and Maurice Blondel are not responsible for the Neo Modernism on the eve of Vatican Council II since if we interpret the Council rationally, without confusing what is invisible as being visible, the Church returns immediately to the pre-Vatican Council II exclusivist ecclesiology.

Henri Du Bac and Maurice Blondel are not responsible for the Neo Modernism  on the eve of Vatican Council II since if we interpret the Council rationally, without confusing what is invisible as being visible, the Church returns immediately to the pre-Vatican Council II exclusivist ecclesiology. The Catholic Church returns to traditional scholasticism.

Fr.Dominic Bourmand in his book 100 years of modernism fails to notice the objective error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston which was repeated at Vatican Council II. The 1949 Letter which confused what is invisible as being visible is referenced in Lumen Gentium 16 of Vatican Council II.

Without this error, still accepted by the SSPX and the popes, Vatican Council II emerges rational and traditional, when Lumen Gentium 16, for example is interpreted as a hypothetical case.

So the New Theology comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. At least it was made official in the 1949 LOHO. Though traces of the error were also there at Baltimore, when the Baltimore Catechism was issued and the baptism of desire was placed in the baptism section.-Lionel Andrades