Why should the readers of the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) website interpret Vatican Council II like Michael and Peter Dimond and not like me ?

Why should the readers of the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) website interpret Vatican Council II like Michael and Peter Dimond  and not like me ?

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases for me and so they are not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). But for the MHFM LG 8 etc contradict EENS.

They suggest that LG 8 etc are not hypothetical but visible cases, for them to be exceptions to EENS.For them LG 8 etc are exceptions to Tradition.So they reject Vatican Council II. I do not do the same.

Our premises and conclusions are different.

Instead of blaming their false premise they blame the Council.

So why would Catholics choose this irrational approach to the Council?

We belong to the one, true , Catholic and Apostolic Church but are interpretation of Magisterial documents is with or without the false premise.So our conclusion is different.There is a hermeneutic of rupture or continuity with Tradition.

Michael and Peter Dimond use the common false premise like the present two popes. I avoid it.

With their false premise they contradict Tradition. Without the false premise I am in harmony with Tradition. Ecclesiology has not changed for me. It has changed for them and so they reject the Council, unaware of the fake premise they use..-Lionel Andrades

 OCTOBER 10, 2019

Mostholyfamilymonastery.com is the highest-ranked traditional Catholic website in the world - Bro. Michael Dimondhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Mostholyfamilymonastery.com%20is%20the%20highest-ranked%20traditional%20Catholic%20website%20in%20the%20world

NOVEMBER 17, 2018

How can Michael and Peter Dimond go for Sunday Mass in Latin and not affirm a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechisms, the Nicene Creed etc ?

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-can-michael-and-peter-dimond-go-for.html

 APRIL 9, 2021

It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney : Vatican Council II is in harmony with 16th century EENS. There is no ' development of doctrine'.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/04/it-was-not-known-to-archbishop-marcel.html

Fire and Light Miracle Healing Service

The interpretation of Magisterial documents by the present two popes would be different from that of the popes before 1930,who did not use the false premise. The popes at that time were Feeneyites. Today they are Cushingites

 Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture are leftists on Vatican Council II even though they may be conservative on other issues. They are forced, for whatever reason, to interpret the Council and the extra ecclesiam nulla salus with a fake premise.

So they would be doing the same with the Creeds and Catechisms and the result would be heretical and schismatic. They would say, like other Catholics, that they believe in the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church but their interpretation of Magisterial documents would be different from mine.

Similarly the interpretation of Magisterial documents by the present two popes would be different from that of the popes before 1930,who did not use the false premise. The popes at that time were Feeneyites. Today they are Cushingites. - Lionel Andrades

 APRIL 9, 2021

It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney : Vatican Council II is in harmony with 16th century EENS. There is no ' development of doctrine'.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/04/it-was-not-known-to-archbishop-marcel.html

It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney : Vatican Council II is in harmony with 16th century EENS. There is no ' development of doctrine'.

It was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr.Leonard Feeney it seems. They did not know that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred always to only hypothetical cases . They were not practical exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Vatican Council II really does not contradict the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and not only Christocentric.

This was no known to Archbishop Pierre Martin Thục (1897 – 1984) the Vietnamese sedevacantist bishop. So it was not known to Michael and Peter Dimond, Benedictines at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA.

Also it was not known to Brother. Thomas Augustine MICM, Superior of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA, USA. He did not know that Vatican Council II does not contradict Feeneyite EENS. In the past Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, N.H, also interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.

The present bishops and priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)do not interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS. So invincible ignorance mentioned in the Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on outside the Church there is no salvation. For the Lefebvrists,  it would also contradict the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Tradition would contradict tradition also for the Lefebvrist, sedevacantist bishops, Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas.The false premise creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

The popes also use the same false premise.Pope Francis recently announced that Vatican Council II had to accepted and interpreted  according to 'the Church'. He was referring to the political left-approved version of Alberto Melloni of the Bologna School. Melloni uses the common false premise like the Lefebvrsist, Thucs and Feeneyites. The fake premise is that what is invisible is considered visible. So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc refer to physically visible bodies in Newton's time and space, in 1965-2021. So they are wrongly considered known examples of salvation outside the Church. Then they emerge as practical exceptions to EENS.

The popes from Paul VI to Francis have used a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, when they had a rational alternative, which they avoided. They made a mistake and Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston did not correct the error. -Lionel Andrades

Signore Gesù, Tu sei venuto su questa Terra per guarire i Cuori feriti ed angosciati