Why should a Catholic be considered a radical traditionalist when Vatican Council II without the premise is in harmony with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus, Athanasius Creed etc)? There is no hermeneutic of rupture. If the liberals use the false premise then they are knowingly avoiding the hermeneutic of continuity.

 

It's important for conservative Catholics that they do not allow Bishop Robert Barron to use the term 'radical traditionalists' . Since it would mean that he has used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II (instead of avoiding it ) and are going along with his interpret of Vatican Council II.

Similarly the SPLC a few years back accused the traditionalists of not accepting Vatican Council II. They were referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise. Vatican Council II interpeted without the false premise could be a shock for the Left.

Bishop Barron and the Left have all these years been supported by Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria.They would only interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.

So this error has to be identified and made public by conservative Catholics.

Vatican Council II with the false premise ends the traditionalist/progressivist division. All have to return to Tradition (EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed) when there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. Even Bishop Barron and Fr. Dwight Longenecker are forced to do so.

There can no more be a development of doctrine by confusing what is invisible as visible,implicit as explicit and subjective as objective.

Only if there was no known salvation outside the Church can there be a New Ecumenism.

Only if we know of non Catholics saved outside the Church can there be a new ecclesiology.

Only with the false premise( confusing what is not there as being there) can there be the New Theology.

Only if there is salvation outside the Church which is an exception to EENS and so visible in personal cases, can there be the end of traditional Mission.

Only with salvation outside the Church the liberals can presently reject the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislatiion.

This is an important point for conservative Catholics to note.The liberals over the last 55 years depended upon the false premise.Without the use of the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, Cardinal Walter Kasper cannot cite Vatican Council II for any innovation.

The liberals and the Lefebvrists were using the false premise but so were  Catholics in general.They use of the false premise is like a virus in the Church.It could be compared to the Arian heresy of past times, when only St. Athanasius was not infected.

Why should a Catholic be considered a radical traditionalist when Vatican Council II without the premise is in harmony with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus, Athanasius Creed etc)? There is no hermeneutic of rupture.

If the liberals use the false premise then they are knowingly avoiding the hermeneutic of continuity.-Lionel Andrades