Fr. Macfarland does not realize that the crisis ends for the
traditionalists when they interpret Vatican Council II rationally. It happens
overnight. It is simple. Neither the Vatican nor the SSPX has responded.
Fr. W. speaks about nominalism, subjectivism, liberalism, Luther, Kant. But the precise fault lies in Vatican Council II. If he did not confuse LG 8,14,1,5,16 etc as being physically visible cases in the present times the Church returns to Tradition. It is immediate.
Fr.Reuter mentions how the Church
was separate from the State. This was possible only by making Vatican Council
II a break with Tradition. It was precise and concrete. Now we can go back in a
precise and concrete way irrespective of what happened in history.
Fr.Reuter does not realize that liberalism or conservatism depends upon
the interpretation of Vatican Council II. To confuse what is invisible as being
visible is a philosophical error. It has two different conclusion.
Vatican Council II was ‘a counter syllabus’ since the Council was
interpreted irrationally and then nontraditional conclusions were accepted.
The Americanists approved the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the
Archbishop of Boston. It approved invisible cases of the baptism of desire and
being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for the
traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla sales.
Fr. David Sherry does not know that he is a modernist when he interprets
Vatican Council II irrationally. He has lost the faith.
Fr. Paul Robinson contradicts Pascendi when he employs the New Theology
based upon the irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council
II.
Unlike Pope Pius X, whose teachings were apostolic the teachings of the
SSPX priests in this video series is not apostolic. It has been influenced by Vatican Council II, irrational. This was not known to even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.- Lionel Andrades
Posts
