Ratzinger, Kasper, Kung and Bergoglio, and Michael Davies and Romano Amerio refuse to interpret the Council without the false premise, a choice which Pope Paul VI had before him

 What Archbishop Viganò has recently been saying with a forthrightness unusual in today’s prelates (see here, here, and here) is but a new installment of a longstanding critique offered by traditional Catholics, from Michael Davies’s Pope John’s Council and Romano Amerio’s Iota Unum to Roberto de Mattei’s The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story and Henry Sire’s Phoenix from the Ashes. We have watched bishops, episcopal conferences, cardinals, and popes construct a “new paradigm,” piece by piece, for more than half a century — a “new” Catholic faith that at best only partially overlaps and at worst downright contradicts the traditional Catholic faith as we find it expressed in the Church Fathers and Doctors, the earlier councils, and hundreds of traditional catechisms, not to mention the old Latin liturgical rites that were suppressed and replaced with radically different ones. -Peter Kwasniewski, Why Viganò’s Critique of the Council Must Be Taken Seriously 1

Lionel: Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Peter Kwasniewski like the Lefebvrists named above did not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise but instead chose to interpret the Council  like the bishops and cardinals and popes to maintain their false 'new paradigm'.

So the Lefebvrists and popes and ecclesiastics, together,like over the last 55 years choose to contradict the the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church on exclusive salvation. 

This is politically correct with the Left and so Kwasniewski  is maintainging the familiar line here ensuring himself of a future in a controversial and tension free Church and career.

__________________

So enormous a chasm gapes between old and new that we cannot refrain from asking about the role played by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in the unfolding of a modernist story that has its beginning in the late 19th century and its denouement in the present. The line from Loisy, Tyrrell, and Hügel to Küng, Teilhard, and (young) Ratzinger to Kasper, Bergoglio, and Tagle is pretty straight when one starts connecting the dots. This is not to say there are not interesting and important differences among these men, but only that they share principles that would have been branded as dubious, dangerous, or heretical by any of the great confessors and theologians, from Augustine and Chrysostom to Aquinas and Bellarmine.

Lionel: Without the artificial false premise used by Kwasniewski and Vigano to interpret Vatican Council II, the Council would finally cease to be their modernist story .

Ratzinger, Kasper, Kung and Bergoglio, and Michael Davies and Romano Amerio refuse to interpret the Council without the false premise, a choice which Pope Paul VI had before him. -Lionel Andrades

1

https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-critique-council/