We have to stop interpreting Vatican Council II like the liberals, Lefebvrists, Thucs and Feeneyites did over the years.We have a choice.

 

We have to stop interpreting Vatican Council II like the liberals, Lefebvrists, Thucs and Feeneyites did over the years.We have a choice.If we look at LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22  etc in Vatican Council II, as hypothetical cases in 2021, the Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.All these years LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were being seen as exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.So it was implied that LG 8 etc were not hypothetical. Since hypothetical and invisible cases which do not exist in the present times, cannot be objective exceptions to Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors etc).This is common sense.

Similarly since 1949 it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This was false. BOD and I.I were interpreted by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, with the fake premise, confusing what was hypothetical as being non hypothetical. We can correct this mistake today.

Una Voce International and the Latin Mass Societies  can also correct this same mistake made by Michael Davies, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.

Fr.Leonard Feeney was a traditionalist who did not interpret EENS with the common error of the popes since Pius XII to Francis.He would not say that invisible cases of BOD and I.I were visible.

When Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally there is no more a parallel Church, we are back to Tradition. This is a disappointment  for Bishop Robert Barron and his friends at the National Catholic Reporter, Crux, America,The Tablet U.K, Commonweal etc,.He once called them up to deal with the extremist traditionalists.Now he has discovered that if he interprets Vatican Council II rationally, without his common fake premise, he goes back to the ecclesiology of G.K Chesterton, Cardinal Newman and St.Thomas Aquinas whom he quotes often.But he does not want to interpret Magisterial documents rationally.In the past there were extremists for him.

He would like to recommend Chesterton but not affirm the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church of Aquinas,Newman and Chesterton.

A few years back Thomas Williams at Breitbart News,wrote an article for The National Catholic Reporter on the glories of the Catholic Church of the past.He cited the work of the great saints.

I posted a comment on the NCR saying all these saints held the strict interpretation of EENS, and I wrote a piece on my blog.He pulled down that report.

He is not going to affirm Vatican Council II rationally and affirmTradition.-Lionel Andrades