They asked me if I thought Roberto dei Mattei and Bruno Gherardini were wrong

I was talking to a few Catholics who thought Vatican Council II contradicted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. I told them I believe Vatican Council II did not contradict the traditional teaching.They asked me if I thought Roberto dei Mattei and Bruno Gherardini were wrong.

How should I explain it to them?

Take the word 'salvation'. Every time there seems a reference to this word or its meaning in Vatican Council II ask yourself: 'The word salvation for me refers to people who are dead and now in Heaven and whom I cannot see with the physical eye or they refer to people whom I can see with the physical eye'.

So there are two options for interpreting the word salvation.

We can also interpret Vatican Council II with either of the two options.

We can interpret LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance), NA 2 ( being saved in another religion which has good and holy things), UR 3 ( being saved in imperfect communion with the Church) as being visible to us  or invisible to us.

If we consider these cases as being visible to us then it means LG 16 etc contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition. There are known exceptions in the present times.

If we consider these cases as being invisible for us and visible only for God then they are not exceptions to Tradition.

So the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the conclusion which follows depends on one of the two interpretations. One interpretation is rational i.e we cannot see the dead-saved. The other is irrational and false i.e we can see the dead-saved.

Roberto Mattei and Bruno Gheradini are interpreting Vatican Council II by assuming that LG 16  etc refer to cases visible to us. For them we can see the dead-saved.
So the conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.

For me it is not. Since I cannot see the dead-saved.

-Lionel Andrades