Cardinals Burke, Müller, and Arinze who were present at the presentation of bishop Athanasius Schneider's book interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.Bishop Schneider does the same.They use the false premise and inference when it can be avoided.

 Cardinals Burke, Müller, and Arinze who were present at the presentation of bishop Athanasius Schnedier's book interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.Bishop Schneider does the same.They use the false premise and inference when it can be avoided.

I have mentioned in a previous blog post that for so many  years Bishop Mark Pivarunas has been teaching his large community of priests and religious sisters that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition and now he knows it is not.What is he going to do? 

Will the Congregatio Mariae Regina Immaculae(CMRI) leave sedevacantism? So is he going to issue a correction and admit that he was wrong all these years?

There was a debate on Ecclesiology between Bishop Donald Sanborn and Prof. Robert Fastiggi and both of them interpreted Vatican Council II (LG 8 etc) as a rupture with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors, EENS etc).

 

They confused invisible and unknown people as being known examples of salvation outside the Church. They confused unknown and hypothetical cases as being  visible.They were avoiding the 'Feeneyite' position and so  projected the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being relevant and exceptions to EENS as it was known to the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.

 Now that they know that Lumen Gentium etc do not contradict traditional EENS they do not issue a correction and admit that they made a mistake.

They continue to interpret Vatican Council II wrongly to their students and seminarians in the US

Similarly Bishop Marcello Semeraro, Bishop of Albano, Italy has written a book titled 'Mistero, comunione e missione'(EDB, Bologna 1997) and interprets Vatican Council II wrongly. He needed to say in this book on Ecclesiology, that the Catholic Church is the only Ark of Noah, in which all need to enter to be saved from the Flood and it is the only 'Door' to Paradise.

  

Semeraro, the Secretary of the group of cardinals which advise Pope Francis, supports mission without saying the Church is the only path to salvation: the only Way, to avoid Hell. So his mission, like that of Pope Francis,is Christological without an ecclesiocentricism. Jesus is necessary for salvation, for Semeraro, but not being a member of the Catholic Church, with faith and baptism(LG 14,AG 7).

Everyone does not need to enter the Church according to his writings, to avoid the fires of Hell ( for salvation).The book is part of the recommended readings for the Ecclesiology semester at the St. John Lateran University, Rome and at other universities in Italy.It is the same with those present for the presentation of Schneider's book.

Even Peter and Michael Dimond had interpreted Vatican Council II wrongly all these years by assuming Lumen Gentium was an exception to their interpretation of exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.There is still no announcement from them acknowledging the error.They need to admit that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, do not contradict their strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation. So they had made a mistake on Vatican Council II, like the other sedevacantists.

The correction from the Society St.Pius X(SSPX) Headquarters is long over due. Their Angelus Press published a book by Fr. Francois Laisney, titled, Is Feeneyism Catholic ?', which was recommended -reading for SSPX seminarians.Fr. Laisney like the SSPX bishops assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So they accepted the interpretation of EENS and BOD,BOB and I.I according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) which is inserted in the Denzinger with this objective error.

 

So there was a radical mistake of the SSPX in the interpretation of EENS and Vatican Council II.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. They confused LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc as being objective exceptions to the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.

Now we know that the Council is not a rupture with Tradition with LG 8 etc are seen as being only hypothetical cases in 2019.

With this mistake Fr. Jean Marie Gleize led the SSPX theologians in the talks with the Vatican. Cardinal Ladaria must have been happy.

The SSPX needs to issue a correction and admit that they had made a mistake all these many years.
 

The SSPX community in Germany call also issue a correction and ask Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Cardinal Marx and Pope Benedict to also issue a correction admiting that they were wrong on Vatican Council II for some 50 plus years.

-Lionel Andrades

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2019/10/bp-schneiders-talk-at-the-presentation-of-the-book-christus-vincit/

JUNE 2, 2018

Ludwig Ott is in a rupture with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/message-incomplete-come-back-after-30.html

JUNE 1, 2018

Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is Cushingite, it overlooks an irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof Robert Fastiggi also use the false premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and Magisterial documents to create a schism with the past popes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/ludwig-otts-fundamentals-of-catholic.html

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/since-for-ludwig-ott-there-are.html