Why should I accept the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) which is heretical, irrational, non traditional, political and schismatic. It creates division in the Church contradicting the first part of LOHO and the past popes on EENS.I affirm the first part of the LOHO which is traditional

 Why should I accept the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO)  which is heretical, irrational, non traditional, political and schismatic. It creates division in the Church contradicting the first part of LOHO and the past popes on EENS.I affirm the first part of the LOHO which is traditional.. -Lionel Andrades

LINKS FROM THE RIGHT HAND BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS 

• Letter of the Holy Office (12)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (98)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be read with the red passages not being exceptions to the blue passages or with the red passages being exceptions to the blue passages (1)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 error carried clearly into Vatican Council II (14)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has heresy upon which so much of Vatican Council II is based. (5)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is heresy ( Graphics) (4)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 read with the Feeneyite-Cushingite model (2)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referenced in Vatican Council II (1)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the for and neutral to EENS method (1)
• Letter of the Holy Office heretical and schismatic (5)
• Letter of the Holy Office heretical and schismatic.Placuit Deo (3)