The Remnant News has posted an article on Vatican Council II by Diane Montagna and there is another conflicting statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on Vatican Council II.

The Remnant News has posted an article on Vatican Council II by Diane Montagna and there is another conflicting statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on Vatican Council II.

Bishop Schneider wansts us to take the good things that are there in the Council-text and leave out the bad things but not all together, dump the Council. This is an indication for me that he is reading the Council as a Cushingite.He is using the false premise.

Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise has to be rejected . Michael Matt and Diane Montagna interpet the Council with that false premise.

So there are passages which support Tradition and others which contradict Tradition. This is how Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) interpreted the Council.The present CDF has to use the irrational premmise to create a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors,the Catechism of Pope Pius IX and the rest of Tradition.

At the onset it has to be recognised and admitted that there are no physically visible cases of non Catholics saved as indicated by LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22  etc. They do not exist in practical life.So Vatican Council II is not referring to any personally known and real person in 1965.There are no such cases in 2020.

Once this is clear, the passages which seem to contradict orthodoxy in Vatican Council II ( e.g LG 8 -subsists it in),always refer to hypothetical cases. Always.

So there are orthodox passages which support the Athanasius Creed and there are hypothetical passages which do not contradict the Creed and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So the Council is Feeneyite. It is traditional.

When we read the Council in this way, it is orthodox, traditional and Feeneyite.Why should Schneider, Matt and Montagna want to reject Vatican Council II when it is read in this way? It is the liberals and the Masons who have a problem with the Council.When the ecclesiology of the Council is the same as before Vatican Council II, there is no theological opening for the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation etc,which is based upon there being known salvation outside the Church.

In 2016 in the interview with Avvenire, Pope Benedict questioned the need for mission, since for him Vatican Council II indicated there was known salvation outside the Church.

Similarly if Bishop Bernard Fellay would ask the pope to affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King, he would decline. He would point out to Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally, which suggests there is known salvation outside the Church. So if non Catholics can be saved outside the Church as a mental possibility and they are 'known' to be saved outside the Church as a practical reality, then he would ask why is it necessary to proclam the Social Reign of Christ the King ?

Similarly Pope Benedict would ask: why should we continue to believe in the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors since they have been made obsolete with the discovery of non Catholics being saved outside the Church in the practical realm. This is clear for the liberals and Masons in their interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then Vatican Council II.

Pope Francis is following the same line of thinking.This is the Vatican Council II which has to be dumped.

-Lionel Andrades