We are not obligated to interpret the Council like the SSPX and Pope Francis. Instead we have a moral obligation not to interpret Vatican Council II like them. So how can there be a Restoration with the SSPX? They are part of the problem

 

   

The SSPX church St.Mary’s in Kansas City, USA was built since the SSPX compromised on doctrine and theology. So they were accepted by the liberal archbishop and the secular authorities.

The videos hope that the new Church, will be a restoration.But how can there be a restoration with Cushingite heretical doctrine.The SSPX does not even deny it. They want to be labeled heretical and schismatic and so avoid being labeled Anti Semitic and then struck financially.

The SSPX denies the original interpretation of the Nicene Creed, “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. They believe in three or more known baptisms. For  me there is only one known baptism, the baptism of water.It is objective visible and repeatable. For them there are the baptisms of desire, blood, invincible ignorance etc, all without the baptism of water. It has to be without the baptism of water, otherwise they would be affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).According to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) everyone needs the visible baptism of water for salvation and there can be no known exceptions for us human beings.

They reject the Athanasius Creed with alleged exceptions and I affirm the Athanasius Creed with no known exceptions.

They interpret Vatican Council II irrationally as a break with the Athanasius Creed etc. I interpret Vatican Council II rationally with the Council being a continuity with Tradition.

The Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q and 27Q) contradicts 29Q for them. For me there is no contradiction.

So with all this confusion they remain politically correct with the popes and the Left but in schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Church.Over the centuries they did not project the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as objective exceptions for dogmatic EENS.

For them there is no Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church since Vatican Council II has exceptions for EENS.There is no more exclusive salvation in the Church for them. So they are tolerated politically by the Left. I can support Traditional Mission since the Council has the hermeneutic of continuity with EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).

I can proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King based upon traditional EENS. They cannot. Since they reject traditional EENS with the Council interpreted irrationally.

I affirm the Syllabus of Errors which is obsolete for them. The Council has exceptions for EENS and for an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church. They are at home with the New Ecumenism and the New Ecclesiology of the liberal popes.For me there cannot be a New Ecumenism and New Ecclesiology since EENS is not contradicted with Vatican Council II.

Religious Liberty is not an issue for me since the Council affirms the strict interpretation of EENS in a Catholic State. Religious liberty is an issue for them.Dignitatis Humane supports traditional Catholic religious liberty in a Catholic state for me and questions it in a secular state.

They accept Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung, Congar and Murray’s interpretation of Vatican Council II. I reject it. Since like Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. John Hardon and Ludwig Ott they all chose to interpret the Council with the fake premise which I avoid.

All the books written by SSPX priests and lay authors are now obsolete. Since we can interpret the Council rationally and the conclusion is different. We are not obligated to interpret the Council like the SSPX and Pope Francis. Instead we have a moral obligation not to interpret Vatican Council II like them.

So how can there be a Restoration with the SSPX? They are part of the problem.- Lionel Andrades