Michael Matt, Hilary White and Chris Ferrara continue to claim they are traditionalists when they interpret magisterial documents with a false premise as do the liberals.
Even after it is pointed out to them numerous times they do not address the issue but continue with their political position and call it traditionalism.
Hilary White's blog post is titled The Choice before us now : Tradition or Apostasy
The Lefebvre interpretation of Vatican Council II and magisterial documents is not a choice. It is heresy. To continue with the error is apostasy.
It is the Lefebvrist traditionalists who interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, the irrational reasoning and then criticize the Council.When I show them how Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and the conclusion is traditional, they do not acknowledge their error.
Since they do not want to support a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).They also do not want to break ranks with the other Lefebvrist traditionalists, who interpret invisible baptism of desire as being a visible exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is being politically correct, for these traditionalists, who no more talk about mission and other religions not being paths to salvation.
They still interpret invisible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 as being visible exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. This was a mistake, a big one, that Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made.
The SSPX bishops continue with the error and so do the sedevacantist bishops, who have had their formation under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
-Lionel Andrades
Abp.Lefebvre's writings now obsolete. He did not know about Vatican Council II and the baptism of desire without the false premise (Graphics)
-Lionel Andrades
https://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2018/09/15/the-choice-before-us-now-tradition-or-apostasy/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment