Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II 1 and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning.
The same group of traditionalists who criticize Medugorje based on doctrine have been making a major doctrinal error with respect to Vatican Council II.
I have shown with the public statements of Muller, Di Noia and Fellay how completely wrong they were about Vatican Council II but I have been saying the same thing for over six years and the traditionalist, read me, but do not comment.They do not want be accused of being Anti-Semitic with respect to Vatican Council II. They are afraid of being called fundamentalists.So they deny the Catholic Faith with their silence.
They criticize Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and they are correct here. Even a lay Catholic with no training in liberal theology, which is now official, will realize that Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Nothing special here.Roberto dei Mattei and Archbishop Lefebvre have written books on a subject which is not contested even by the liberals. The liberals and Masons go out of their way to say that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
What the traditionalists and liberals are not saying is that without the irrational premise and conclusion used to interpret Vatican Council II, the Council is in perfect agreement with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So Archbishop Lefebvre had it wrong when he accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then used the irrational reasoning of the Letter to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past. It was probably an innocent error. The magisterium did not clarify the issue for him.
Instead they excommunicated. Neither did the magisterium clarify that the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was a mistake. There were no known exceptions to his interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Instead they allowed , and still allow, the slander against Fr. Leonard Feeney to continue.
Now that it can be seen in three texts, made public,2 that the contemporary magisterium, and the SSPX, have interpreted Vatican Council II by wrongly assuming hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma, are they going to do anything about it ?
Not for now.
Since what I have written here is not new.
They want to affirm Church doctrine the traditionalists say but they do not want to be considered Feeneyites. They want to keep their careers in religious life.
They cannot displease their bishop by saying hypothetical cases cannot be known exceptions to all needing to be card carrying members of the Church.
Even Bishop Schneider has no comment even after I have sent him these blog posts.He is not going to offend the Jewish Left.
Instead they condemn Medugorje. How can you expect the Franciscans at Medugorje to say that Our Lady affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , when the Franciscans there, the Magisterium in Rome and the traditionalists in the USA and Europe do not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma ? The popes would have closed down Medugorje 30-plus years ago and Our Lady would not have been able to have done her excellent conversion of millions of Catholics.
Traditionalists,liberals and Masons interpret Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism and do not want to be politically incorrect and say that Vatican Council II can also be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism.
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay contradict the extra ordinary (ex cathedra) and ordinary magisterium