VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONAL DOES NOT HAVE THE IMPRIMATUR. THE RATIONAL VERSION IS APOSTOLIC.
VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONAL DOES NOT HAVE THE IMPRIMATUR. THE RATIONAL VERSION IS APOSTOLIC.
How can Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, as is common, be given the imprimatur or nihil obstat. It is not apostolic. It is schism with the past magisterium. The Council interpreted rationally is apostolic.It is magisterial.It has a continuity with Tradition.
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the pro- Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, in 1965, wrongly interpreted LG 16 as an invisible case.It was projected as an example of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Repeating the mistake of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO) the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Tradition was made obsolete, with this objective error.
Pope Paul VI was supported by the liberals and conservatives. The 1949 LOHO confused implicit cases as being explicit. It was not apostolic or magisterial with this error.
So today when Bishop Robert Barron and Larry Chap interpret Vatican Council II liberally, they depend upon the confusion in the 1949 LOHO. It was heretical and schismatic. It assumed the baptism of desire was an explicit and known cases.Then it was concluded that not everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.So it contradicted the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms.
Bishops Conferences and seminaries and universities have a choice today. They can interpret implicit cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 as just being implicit. The Council then with AG 7 is aligned with the dogma EENS.While LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not objective exceptions for AG 7, EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
It is the Synods which can no more cite Vatican Council II for their liberalism.
If a cardinal interprets Vatican Council II rationally it will be ‘a theological earthquake ‘states AI at ‘X’.
If the pope interprets the Council rationally, the Left, within the Church could break away in a schism. The Left – and the whole Church, is already in schism with the Council interpreted irrationally and dishonestly. We have an official schism with Vatican Council II, irrational.The Council has exceptions for the Athanasius Creed etc.There are new versions of the Creeds.
During the election of Pope Leo, all the cardinals were interpreting the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally. This includes cardinals Sarah, Burke and Muller. It is the same with the sedevacantists and the SSPX bishops.
Vatican Council II irrational cannot have an imprimatur and so Catholics are not obliged to follow it.
The Council can be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is different from that in 1965.
There are two versions of the same Council. There are two different versions of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. It depends upon the premise. So we cannot blame Vatican Council II per se.
The premise and inference determine the conclusion of the Council -traditional or liberal.
Catholics are not obligated to follow a Vatican Council II- interpretation which does not have a nihil obstat. A rational interpretation of the Council could be given the imprimatur. It has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.It is in harmony with the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The 1983 Code of Canon Law is based upon Vatican Council II, irrational.
The judges at the Vatican Signatura are expected to interpret the Council rationally and so honestly.
A cardinal is in a Vatican prison today for making a wrong real estate investment while Cardinal Parolin interprets the Council dishonestly and is not punished.
Vatican Council II irrational does not have the imprimatur. The rational version is apostolic. - Lionel Andrades