For the Lefebvrists jobs and income are the top priority and not the faith

 The Lefebvrists do not want to give up the good life and interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise. There could be tension.

Now life is easy since they use the same false premise as the Left to interpret the Council.

Now they say they accept the Council but do not qualify if they refer to Vatican Council II interpretd with or without the premise.The ambiguity is useful for them.

Joseph Shaw, Thomas Pink and John Lamont avoid this issue. Since they have to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to keep their teaching jobs as professors of theology and philosophy in England and Australia.

At Una Voce International they do not comment on the issue of the false premise in the interpretation of the Council.It is the same for the Lepanto Foundation and the Remnant News.Here we have liberals who go for Mass in Latin.

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf wants to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise like Pope Francis and the Bologna School of Alberto Melloni in Italy.

Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, the Holdebrands and Fr. Nicholas Gruner they are all interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.Then they express their surprise or  disappointment with the expected non traditional conclusion.Then they blame the Council and not themselves.

John Henry Weston continues to post reports on Vatican Council II on Life Site News but does not touch the subject of the false premise.Since then people would expect him to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and so affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The Lefebvrists have thought out this issue among themselves and have decided to let this issue remain ambigous.Peter Kwasniewski and Taylor Marshall are also into this and is Archbishop Carlo Vigano.

Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II and they interpreted the Council with the false premise. They do not acknowledge it, deny or or issue an apology. -Lionel Andrades

If Amy Barrett interpreted Vatican Council II rationally she may not have qualified as a judge

 Amy Barrett is a professor of law at Notre Dame Univesity and is a progressivist since she interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise, even though she may be pro life.

She interprets Magisterial documents with an irrational premise, by confusing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 in Vatican Council II as being not invisible but visible in the present times.So there is a  rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).So she is nominated a judge of the U.S Supreme Court.

Without the false premise i.e without confusing hypothetical UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 as not being hypothetical, there would be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to contradict 16th century EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

All the six Catholic judges on th Supreme Court interpret Vatican Council II unethically.This could be an issue for the U.S Senate Ethics Committee.

With the false premise Amy Barrett and the other Catholic judges  reject the Athanasius Creed.The present two popes do the same and this does not make the error correct and justified.

None of the judges affirm the traditional Catholic teaching on other religions.Neither of them affirm an ecumenism of return or promote the Social Reign of Christ the King in political legislation as it is mentioned in Quas Primas.

They are liberals who support the official New Theology of the Vatican based on a false premise and inference which creates a non traditional conclusion. Then they attribute it to Vatican Council II, when the error lies with their personal perspective.

The Catholic judges record on abortion has not been special. The Catholic faith is ambigous for them.

According to  Christ to the World, the mission magazine of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the Church has not retracted the teaching outside the Church there is no salvation.One can hardly expect Amy Barrett and the Catholic judges to say the same thing.

If she interperted Vatican Council II rationally she may not have qualified as a judge. She would be a traditionalist, 'rigid' Catholic. -Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020

U.S Catholic Supreme Court judges use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so project themselves as progressivist and not traditional

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_96.html