Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider use the Fake Premise like the liberals. So they offer the Latin Mass in schism and heresy and do not deny it, for political reasons. They do not deny their mortal sins of faith and they hear the Confession of Catholics in sin.

 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider use the Fake Premise ( invisible cases of LG 16 etc are visible in 2022) instead of the Rational Premise( invisible cases of LG 8,LG 16,LG 14 etc are physically visible in 2022) and Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Cardinal Walter Kasper do the same.

So invisible and unknown cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14) or invisible ignorance (LG 16) or ‘elements of sanctification and truth in other religions’ (LG 8) are visible and known for them in 1965-2022 so they conclude that there are practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc.

For me unknown and invisible cases in 1965-2022 of non Catholics saved according to LG 8, LG 14, and LG 16 are invisible and unknown. So they are not practical exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

The traditionalists and liberals however use the same False Premise (invisible people are visible in the present times) while I use the Rational Premise (invisible people are invisible in the present times).Their conclusion is non-traditional (EENS is obsolete since there are practical exceptions) and mine is traditional (EENS is not obsolete since there are no practical exceptions in the present times).

So I can go for the Latin Mass and be orthodox while they offer the Latin Mass creating false exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return to the Church etc).This is irregular. It is unorthodox. It is an innovation.

They choose the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition while I choose one of continuity with Tradition.

They choose a break with the past Magisterium which is schism. I avoid it.

They re-interpret the Creeds and Catechisms with the same False Premise (invisible people are visible) and I avoid it. This is first class heresy which I avoid.

So they offer the Latin Mass in schism and heresy and do not deny it, for political reasons.

They do not deny their mortal sins of faith and they hear the Confession of Catholics in sin.

Bishop Schneider when interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall has said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14).So he used the Rational Premise (the invisible cases of the baptism of desire are invisible in the present times).However he is not saying that LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II also refer to hypothetical cases. It would mean the Council does not contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. 

He does not affirm these Church Documents with no exceptions. There are exceptions for him, so the Council is a break with Tradition. This is the traditionalist position on Vatican Council II which is politically correct with the Left and the Vatican. It is acceptable for them. It is also the liberal position.They affirm the Council with exceptions and so there is  a break with Tradition which they accept.

They both use the same False Premise but the traditionalists in a vague way  and the liberals accept it.

But for the two bishops this is not ethical even by secular standards when they use the False Premise to create an artificial break with Catholic Tradition, in particular the old theology which was ecclesiocentric.They are following the Left in their interpretation of Vatican Council II and are liberals and not traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades