The new theology of the sedevacantists and traditionalists like that of the liberals says all Muslims do not need to convert into the Catholic Church

Sedevantists and traditionalists are not  aware of having used an irrational premise to misinterpret Vatican Council II since  the same irrational premise has been used by the Magisterium; the contemporary Magisterium, which for them cannot  be wrong or politicised. They believe  that the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII could not be wrong.So they accept changes in Catholic -teaching. They have changed the meaning theologically of the Nicene Creed, the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. They have accepted a new theology based on an irrational premise. They condemn Feeneyism and support Cushingism.

It means like the liberals they say, for example, that all Muslims do not need to convert into the Church for salvation.Or in other words, all do need to convert except for those in invincible ignorance and/or with the baptism of desire and blood and are  saved without the baptism of water.

So like the liberals the bottom line  still is :  that all do not need to convert, the Catholic Church is not the one true Church for all ( but only for most people or many people  who need to convert), the popes made an error ex cathedra( so the dogma EENS has been changed and is irrelevant) and of course, Vatican Council II is a break with the past.Since, BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known cases, Vatican Council II contradicts Tradition, the dogma EENS etc.

This is their irrational and complicated theology, which is the same as the liberals and the contemporary Magisterium.

They are unable to say that the Magisterium made a mistake and that they also, traditionalists, have a made a doctrinal mistake.

In his new blog post Terrorized By Ecumenism IAAD on the blog Introibo Ad Altare Dei comments on Islam and is unaware that he holds the same position theologically, as the liberals and Masons, on Islam.

Since for him there is known salvation outside the Church as it was for Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed. So IAAD like the popes rejects the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. The sedes and trads  reject Feeneyism and support Cushingism i.e there are known exceptions to EENS.(There are known Muslims who do not need to convert for salvation?)

This is also the position of the SSPX.They are simply following Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. So there is no real opposition to the liberal and magisterial  error coming from the traditionalists and sedevancantists.

They have accepted the change in doctrine in the Catholic Church. For even conservatives, like Cardinal Raymond  Burke , it is magisterial to accept Cushingism and reject Feeneyism.

So when IAAD discusses Islam, he is criticizing the religion based on Tradition which preceded the BOD- BOB- is- visible theology.At the same time he accepts a theology,which says BOD, BOB being visible, are exceptions to Tradition.They  are exceptions to the traditional dogmatic teachng on other religions and ecumenism.They are exceptions to the pre-1808 theology. This is the common dual position of the traditionalists and sedevacantists.

 So IAAD has a dual position on ecumenism. He rejects the magisterial ecumenism only based on post 1808 theology(which he uses and is unaware of ) while he accepts the post 1808 theology which affirms Cushingism. The post 1808 theology, especially after the Boston case in 1949, says not every one needs to convert in the present times.So here he unknowingly promotes the view that the Catholic Church is the one true Church only for many and not all people, since there are  'visible' exceptions.So all Muslims do not need to convert for him.
When this is brought to his attention he will deny it. He will say that every one needs to enter the Church ( he is referring to pre- 1808 theology and he means it sincerely). When asked if by saying this he supports Feeneyism, he will back track.He will say ,he does not accept Feeneyism. In other words, there are exceptions to every one needing to enter the Church.This is the new theology.
MICHAEL VORIS
We can see the same heresy and error for example, with Michael Voris. In a recent CMTV program he spoke about the Church being the one true Church.This is the only Church of God for him  and of course he means it. He is sincere. In his mind will be the pre- 1808 teachings of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas. St.Augustine.
However he has also not denied that in a previous program on CMTV a few months back  he has said 'not every one needs to be ' a card carrying member' of the Church'. 

This is magisterial. It is Cushingism.It is a rejection of Feeneyism.

 It is also saying via theology that every one does not need to convert into the Church in the present times. It means this is not the one true Church of God for all.So again we have the same contradiction as that of the sedevacantists and traditionalists.The dual position.

They have accepted Cushingism, which is a new theology based on there being explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. 

Michael Voris like IAAD, Bishop Bernard  Fellay, Michael Matt 1 and so many other Catholics, have accepted the irrational theology which has come into the Church. They are at par with Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Koch and the political Left. They have a common irrational theology on salvation, other religions and ecumenism.They have endorsed the new theology based on irrationality and are unaware of it.Their position is ambiguous and complicated.

The sedevacantist IAAD thinks the fault is there with Vatican Council II for the dilution of the Faith when the fault is really his use of an irrational premise(cases in Heaven without the baptism of water are visible this year) and inference ( they are explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church with faith and baptism)  in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The fault is there with his choice of Cushingism which is magisterial - but  heretical.
-Lionel Andrades

1