If Amy Barrett interpreted Vatican Council II rationally she may not have qualified as a judge

 Amy Barrett is a professor of law at Notre Dame Univesity and is a progressivist since she interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise, even though she may be pro life.

She interprets Magisterial documents with an irrational premise, by confusing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 in Vatican Council II as being not invisible but visible in the present times.So there is a  rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).So she is nominated a judge of the U.S Supreme Court.

Without the false premise i.e without confusing hypothetical UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 as not being hypothetical, there would be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to contradict 16th century EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

All the six Catholic judges on th Supreme Court interpret Vatican Council II unethically.This could be an issue for the U.S Senate Ethics Committee.

With the false premise Amy Barrett and the other Catholic judges  reject the Athanasius Creed.The present two popes do the same and this does not make the error correct and justified.

None of the judges affirm the traditional Catholic teaching on other religions.Neither of them affirm an ecumenism of return or promote the Social Reign of Christ the King in political legislation as it is mentioned in Quas Primas.

They are liberals who support the official New Theology of the Vatican based on a false premise and inference which creates a non traditional conclusion. Then they attribute it to Vatican Council II, when the error lies with their personal perspective.

The Catholic judges record on abortion has not been special. The Catholic faith is ambigous for them.

According to  Christ to the World, the mission magazine of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the Church has not retracted the teaching outside the Church there is no salvation.One can hardly expect Amy Barrett and the Catholic judges to say the same thing.

If she interperted Vatican Council II rationally she may not have qualified as a judge. She would be a traditionalist, 'rigid' Catholic. -Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020

U.S Catholic Supreme Court judges use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so project themselves as progressivist and not traditional

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_96.html