It is a common mistake among the traditionalists ( Thucs, Lefebvrists and Feeneyites) to project LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc as being practical exceptions to EENS

 It is a common mistake among the traditionalists ( Thucs, Lefebvrists and Feeneyites) to project LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc as being practical exceptions to EENS.

They conclude that LG 14 ( baptism of desire) is a practical exception to EENS and so Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition(EENS). Their premise is that LG 14 refers to a physically visible case at Newton's level of matter.It would have to be physically visible and known to be a practical exception. An invisible person cannot be an exception to Feeneyite EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q,27Q).Someone who is not practically there cannot be an example of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2021.

 But this is a false premise. It is also the mistake made by the MHFM.

APRIL 6, 2021

It is important for the MHFM to acknowledge this point. Since it would also change their interpretation of Vatican Council II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/04/it-is-important-for-mhfm-to-acknowledge.html

____________________

 DECEMBER 26, 2017

The Most Holy Family Monastery like the SSPX and SSPX Resistance groups interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism, they use a false premise

The Most Holy Family Monastery like the SSPX and SSPX Resistance groups interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism, they use a false premise instead of avoiding it. So  with a false premise their conclusion is non traditional and heretical for me.

-Lionel Andrades