CMTV cannot discuss this issue.

 

In his latest Vortex on the subject of the SSPX being allegedly in schism Michael Voris states:

Too many Catholic media types just stay mum on their support of schism and rejection of the Second Vatican Council as a legitimate council. They refuse to answer your questions because it provides them a certain cover. Why not debate these issues openly and live? Church Militant is happy to do so. Why not allow your underpinnings to be questioned? Why not go directly on the record and lay your cards on the table?

Is Francis the pope? Do you accept the determination of the last three popes that the SSPX is in schism? Was Vatican II a legitimate council? All yes-or-no questions. Yes, there is much to discuss, falling from those questions, but the questions themselves are very straightforward. Media have an obligation to present the truth. Covering up your position and keeping it out of the public's eye is not honest.

 I accept Vatican Council II as a legitimate Council only when it is interpreted rationally. The popes are in schism when they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and produce a new theology with new doctrines.

I have mentioned this many times before but Michael Voris and Christine Niles will not respond. Since they accept the political Left interpretation of the popes. They call this irrational interpretation the ‘magisterium’. If they reject it a Decree of Prohibitions will be issued against them by the Vatican and the Left. Since, then they will affirming traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with no exceptions i.e Feeneyite EENS.

Overnight Pope Francis and the cardinals can interpret Vatican Council II rationally and then the Council will be in harmony with Tradition. This will be magisterial.

Then even Michael Voris will have to accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. If he continues to interpret the Council irrationally, it will be a mortal sin of faith. Voris will be rejecting the Athanasius Creed and changing the interpretation of the Nicene Creed.This is what he is doing today and does not deny it for political reasons

Michael Voris needs, politically,  to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like the popes. This is an obligatory condition the Left has placed upon the Catholic Church. It is schismatic. It is a break with the 16^th century interpretation of the Nicene and Athanasius Creed which had no exceptions. 

CMTV cannot discuss this issue.

Is Francis the pope? Do you accept the determination of the last three popes that the SSPX is in schism? Was Vatican II a legitimate council? All yes-or-no questions. Yes, there is much to discuss, falling from those questions, but the questions themselves are very straightforward. Media have an obligation to present the truth. Covering up your position and keeping it out of the public's eye is not honest.

Yes Pope Francis is the schismatic pope who rejects the 16^th century interpretation of the Nicene and Athanasius Creed which had no exceptions. CMTV cannot discuss this issue.Pope Francis is interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and  not rationally like Brother Andre Marie micm, the Prior of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St.Benedict Center in New Hampshire.

Do you accept the determination of the last three popes that the SSPX is in schism? 

The popes since Paul VI were interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational premise. The conclusion was non traditionl. It was schismatic and heretical. It was good that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX did not accept this non traditional version of the Council.Pope Francis and the cardinals today can correct the error.

 Was Vatican II a legitimate council?

Yes. Vatican Council II was a legitimate Council when it is today interpreted rationally.The Council Fathers, Ratzinger, Rahner etc were interpreting the Council irrationally. This was not magisterial, though the Council was legitimate.

-Lionel Andrades