There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and Archbishop Vigano and Dr. Taylor Marshall choose the irrational version like Pope Francis. It is politically correct with the Left

There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one uses a Rational Premise and the other an Irrational Premise. So the Conclusions are Traditional and Non Traditional.

 

-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano offered Holy Mass in Italian and then was exposed to the Lefebvrist ideology, which depends upon the False Premise, like the liberal ideology. He did not know that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the same mistake, as the liberals, when he used a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II.

 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano offered Holy Mass in Italian and then was exposed to the Lefebvrist ideology, which depends upon the False Premise, like the liberal ideology. He did not know that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the same mistake, as the liberals,  when he used a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. It was the same mistake made by Pope Paul VI and the following popes, including Pope John Paul II.

So Archbishop Vigano sees Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition (EENS, Syllabus etc ) and thinks that the Lefebvrists are correct and he has often praised Archbishop Lefebvre. The same mistake is being made by Dr. Taylor Marshall. They do not know that if the Lefebvrists use the Rational Premise then the Council would be traditional and would support Feeneyite EENS.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops did not know this.

Even the religious communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, in the USA, the St. Benedict Centers, are Lefebvrist and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with the False Premise.

Similarly the sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA, are Feeneyite on EENS but they have been interpreting Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise.

So Archbishop Vigano and Dr. Taylor Marshall have accepted the Leftist propaganda, which is the same as that of the liberals, not knowing that their ideology is based upon the False Premise.

Without the False Premise which creates a New Theology, the Church automatically returns to the old theology and the old exclusivist ecclesiology.

Without Vatican Council II (Irrational) the Lefebvrists are going back to Tradition and this is a good thing. But they are using the False Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It used the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. So with this False Premise the Lefebvrists, like the liberals, are now interpreting the Creeds, Catechisms and Vatican Council II.They put the blame on the Council and not their lack of the Rational Premise.

When the False Premise is used we have ideology and not the Catholic Faith.

I was speaking to a young priest of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in Rome. He was aware of the False Premise but he had to accept what his superiors at Econe, said about Vatican Council II. He had to follow the ideology even if he knew it was false, on Vatican Council II.

Econe determined the ideology on Vatican Council II.

Presently the Lefebrists and liberals are politically correct with the Left on Vatican Council II. They do not choose the Rational Premise and say that Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition (EENS, Syllabus etc).

If they affirmed Vatican Council II in harmony with the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal (1580) it would not be acceptable for the SSPX bishops or the Vatican.

Vatican Council II must be interpreted by all, as a break with Tradition- even if it is not true. I think Dr. Taylor Marshall understands this and so is interpreting the Council like Pope Francis. The Council has to have the hermeneutic of rupture for him. -Lionel Andrades

MAY 24, 2022

I don't think that the Novus Ordo Mass should be abolished.Neither should Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise be abolished.

Archbishop Carlo Vigano and  Dr. Taylor Marshall are interpreting Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise and so they are supporting a break with the past Magisterium on EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed.

This is heresy and schism with the past Magisterium by these two traditionalists. Traditionalists opposing Tradition.

When the False Premise is used then the Creeds are misinterpreted and this is a mortal sin of faith at the Latin Mass, for them. It would also be a mortal sin, at the Novus Ordo Mass. 

I don't think that the Novus Ordo Mass should be abolished.Neither should Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise be abolished.-Lionel Andrades

 

 

WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS

OF VATICAN COUNCIL II :

 

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?

It is unethical when the popes, cardinals and bishops choose the Irrational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents.

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

___________________ 

ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH