Mattei is a good historian and his books on Tradition, the saints and popes, are recommended but not those on Vatican Council II or on subjects in which he has interpreted the Council irrationally and not rationally.

 

Roberto dei Mattei is still selling books on Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and for how long is this to continue? I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, rationally. So they are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Vatican Council II does not contradict the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX neither does it contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q on other religions not being paths to salvation). The Council is traditional.

It is the same Vatican Council II before the both of us. But he interprets LG 8, as being physically visible cases. For me they are physically invisible cases in 2023.There have to be visible cases, for LG 8 etc, to be exceptions for the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition. Invisible people cannot be exceptions.

For me LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases for Mattei, the SSPX , Pope Francis and the cardinals they refer to visible cases. If they were invisible cases for them , then they would be Feeneyites. But they deny this.

So they imply that LG 8 etc refer to visible cases for them and so LG 8 etc are exceptions for EENS etc. This is Cushingism. They do  not affirm the strict interpretation of EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.

The SSPX also is still selling books which project Vatican Council II as a break with the past. This is dishonest. Why should we interpret LG 8 etc as a break with the past?

We know that LG 8 etc can only be hypothetical, always. This was known over the centuries. It is common sense. So they did not project exceptions for EENS.

Mattei is a good historian and his books on Tradition, the saints and popes, are recommended but not those on Vatican Council II or on subjects in which he has interpreted the Council irrationally and not rationally.

Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops made the same mistake. They interpreted Vatican Council II like the liberals. Bishop Bernard Fellay can now choose to interpret  the Council, like me. - Lionel Andrades