The USCCB bishops are officially and publically using a False Premise in the USA to interpret Vatican Council II and other Church Documents. Is this legal?

 

The USCCB bishops are officially and publically using a False Premise in the USA to interpret Vatican Council II and other Church Documents. Is this legal?

Bishop Robert Barron does the same and after being informed does not deny it. He now continues to interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise ( invisible people are visible), Fake Inference( they are examples of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions for EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc) and Non Traditional Conclusion( Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, the Syllabus of Errors has exceptions and so is obsolete etc).

For me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case but for the USCCB bishops it is visible. For me, LG 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) refers to a hypothetical case but for the American bishops it is not hypothetical. If it was hypothetical it would not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.So they need the exceptions.

LG 16 is objective for them and subjective for me. LG 16 is always implicit and never explicit, for me. For them it is the reverse. Upon this irrationality they follow their new theology. The USCCB bishops at Baltimore decided to give the Eucharist to Biden to protect their interests.

They are now choosing to interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise, to protect their interests. Bishop Barron is doing this after being informed. It is unethical.

John Allen Jr’s podcasts are offered on Bishop Barron’s website. Bishop Barron and John Allen interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise and so produce a liberal version of the Catholic faith.

They also support the liberal theology of the popes from Paul VI to Francis, who also created liberalism with the same Fake Premise. The USCCB officially does the same.-Lionel Andrades