Why should Catholics choose the progressivist and Lefebvrist interpretation of Vatican Council II with a false premise instead of mine without the fake premise ?

 

Why should Catholics choose the progressivist and Lefebvrist interpretation of Vatican Council II with a false premise instead of mine without the fake premise ? For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical.For the liberals and the traditionalists they are not always hypothetical.Since for them LG 8 etc are practical exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). They are not Feeneyites on EENS.They make the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( ecumenism of return into the Catholic Church) obsolete.Liberals and trads make them obsolete with the false premise which creates practical exceptions for EENS.So Cardinal Kasper and Bishop Barron support Vatican Council II with the false premise ( invisible and hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 16 etc are objective and practical exceptions to EENS).Similarly for Taylor Marshall and Peter Kwasniewski, LG 8, LG 15 etc are objective exceptions for EENS and so they reject this version of Vatican Council II.Both groups use the same fake premise. One group accepts the non traditional conclusion and the other rejects it.

Both groups produce the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.I avoid it.

So choose my interpretation of Vatican Council II.It is rational, non heretical, non schismatic, without a rupture with Tradition and Magisterial since it is in harmony with the past Magisterium, the popes and saints of the past.

When the present two popes choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the fake premise then they too will be Magisterial on the Council.So choose Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades on the blog Eucharistandmission.-Lionel Andrades