Cushingites say
invisible cases are visible and Feeneyites says that invisible cases are
invisible. So for Cushingites LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer
to physically visible cases for Cushingites but invisible and only
hypothetical cases for Feeneyites. Cushingites use a False Premise
and Feeneyites use the Rational Premise and so their conclusions are different.
For Cushingites the interpretation of Vatican Council II results in a Non Traditional
Conclusion and for Feeneyites it is Traditional. It is the same Vatican Council
II-text before them but their premise, inference and conclusions are different.
So even though Rahner,
Ratzinger and Congar were there at Vatican Council II we can interpret the
Council with the Rational Premise and the Council is traditional.
So today there is no need for Catholics to stay in sedevcantism based upon Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally. They can interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and the Council is traditional. -Lionel Andrades
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
Posts
