There are articles/reports on Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise on the website of the traditionalists. They are there on the websites of the Most Holy Family Monastery, Catholicism.org,Most Holy Trinity Seminary,Novus Ordo Watch, Rorate Caeili, Remnant News, Correspondenza Romano etc. They need to be corrected

 Fr.Leonard Feeney, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Archbishop Pierre Thuc did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted  with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and there would be no break with Tradition. 

There are articles/reports on Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise on the website of the traditionalists. They are there on the websites of the Most Holy Family Monastery, Catholicism.org,Most Holy Trinity Seminary,Novus Ordo Watch, Rorate Caeili, Remnant News, Correspondenza Romano etc. They need to be corrected. - Lionel Andrades

MOST HOLY TRINITY SEMINARY

PRE-VATICAN II ROMAN CATHOLIC The Seminary professes that Vatican II and the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical reforms which have proceeded from it are substantial alterations of the Catholic Faith.(Lionel : This is Vatican Council II with the false premise ) It professes that these heretical, evil, and blasphemous reforms can in no way proceed from the Roman Catholic Church, since she is infallible in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. The Seminary therefore professes that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy (including and especially the Vatican II “popes”), despite any and all appearances of authority, are not true Catholic popes nor true Catholic bishops, and do not possess the authority to rule, for they are the authors of the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical abominations which have invaded our holy places. The Seminary professes that they are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.(Lionel: Bishop Sanborn remains in sedevacantism because of his his rrrational and not rational interpretation of Vatican Council II ).

The Seminary proposes, as the solution to the aberrations of Vatican II, the complete rejection of this council as a false council, including its decrees and enactments.(Lionel: There is no mention of Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise, inference and conclusion ) The Second Vatican Council manifested itself to be a false council, and devoid of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, by the fact that it promulgated doctrines which were previously condemned by the Church.(Lionel: Vatican Council II without the common error is not a  break with Tradition. The Council is no more a reason for going into sedevacantism) The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by (1) the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;(Lionel: This is true. Pope Paul VI interpreted the Council with the false premise instead of without it ) (2) the series of abominations perpetrated by Paul VI and his successors against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases; (3) the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service; (4) the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity; (5) the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis; (6) the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage; (7) the fact that Paul VI and his successors are in communion with manifest heretics, have openly declared themselves to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and have recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and heretical bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith.(Lionel . These are manifestations which have come after Vatican Council II was interpreted with the false premise by the liberals and traditionalists. Now we have a choice. We can re-interpret the Council with the rational premise, inference and conclusion).    https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/

Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion, by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini

https://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html 

____________________

De Mattei: The Second Vatican Council and the Message of Fatima

Roberto de Mattei

Corrispondenza Romana

August 2, 2017

Rorate Caeli, Corrispondenza Romana and other Catholic news-outlets, carried a valuable intervention by Monsignor Athanasius Schneider on the “Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and its relationship with the current crisis in the Church”. According to the auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Vatican II was a pastoral Council and its texts should be read and judged in the light of the perennial teaching of the Church.(Lionel: he means interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and there will be a rupture with the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church ) In fact “From an objective point of view, the statements of the Magisterium (Popes and councils) of definitive character, have more value and more weight compared with the statements of pastoral character, which have naturally a changeable and temporary quality depending on historical circumstances or responding to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as it is the case with the major part of the statements of Vatican II.”(Interpreted with the false premise)

Monsignor Schneider’s article was followed on July 31st by a balanced comment from Don Angel Citati of the FSSPX (http://www.sanpiox.it/attualita/1991-suaviter-in-modo-fortiter-in-re), according to which the German Bishop’s position recalls very closely what was repeated constantly by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre: “To say that we evaluate the  Council’s documents “in the light of Tradition”, means, evidently, three indissoluble things: that we accept those that are in keeping with Tradition; that we interpret those that are ambiguous according to Tradition; that we reject those that are contrary to Tradition” ( (Mons. M. Lefebvre, Vi trasmetto quello che ho ricevuto. Tradizione perenne e futuro della Chiesa, [I transmit what I have received. Perennial Tradition and the future of the Church] by Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro, Sugarco Edizioni, Milano 2010, p. 91). Having been published on the official site of the Italian District, Don Citati’s article helps us understand what might be the base of an agreement to regularize the canonical situation of the Fraternity of Pius X.(Lionel: The German bishops too were interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise and the traditionalists could not tell the German Catholics that they had an option.)

It must be added that, on the theological level, all of the distinctions can and have to be made to interpret the texts of Vatican II, which was a legitimate Council: the twenty-first in the Catholic Church. Its documents from time to time may be defined pastoral or dogmatic, provisional or definitive, in keeping or not in keeping with Tradition. Monsignor Brunero Gheradini, in his recent works offers us an example of how a theological judgment may be articulated, if it wants to be precise (Il Concilio Vaticano II un discorso da fare, Casa Mariana, Frigento 2009 e Id., Un Concilio mancato, Lindau, Torino 2011). Each text, for a theologian, has a different quality and a different degree of authority and cogency.  Hence the debate is open.(Lionel: Neither did Prof. Roberto dei Mattei or Mons. Brunero Gheradino know about Vatican Council II interpreted with a rational premise, inference and conclusion).

On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins, its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church, initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent.  If the theological judgment may be vague and comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal.  The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church.(Lionel: Yes since Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre were not interpreting the Council without the irrational premise. They had a choice in 1965).

Since  this year is the centenary of the Apparitions of Fatima, let us consider this point only. When Vatican II opened in October 1962, Catholics from all over the world were waiting for the disclosing of the Third Secret and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary. John Haffert’s Blue Army led a mass campaign for years in this regard. What better occasion for John XXIII ( died 3rd June 1963), Paul VI and with circa 3000 bishops gathered around  them, in the very heart of Christendom, to meet Our Lady’s requests in a solemn and unanimous way? On February 3rd 1964,  Monsignor Geraldo de Proença Sigaud, personally delivered to Paul VI, a petition signed  by 510 prelates from 78 countries, which implored the Pontiff, in union with all the bishops, to consecrate the world and in an explicit manner, Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Pope and most of the Council Fathers ignored the appeal.

If the Consecration request had been done, great graces would have poured down on humanity. A movement of a return to the natural and Christian law would have begun. Communism would have fallen many years earlier, in an non-fictitious way, but authentic and real. Russia would have converted and the world would have experienced an age of peace and order. Our Lady had promised this.

The failed consecration allowed Russia to continue spreading its errors throughout the world and these errors conquered the highest ranks of the Church, inviting a terrible chastisement for all of humanity. Paul VI and the majority of the Council Fathers assumed a historical responsibility for which today we gauge the consequences. (Lionel: The Council can be interpreted without the errors of the past)

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/08/de-mattei-second-vatican-council-and.html