Without the false premise ecclesiology is traditional. Vatican Council II is not modernist but traditional

From the SSPX North America District website:

"Magisterium or living tradition?"

Fr. Gleize denounces a false dilemma

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their objection to our position, in short, is that the only living magisterium worthy of the name is today’s magisterium, not yesterday’s. Only the magisterium of today can tell what conforms to Tradition and what is contrary to it, for it alone represents the living magisterium, the interpreter of Tradition.

Lionel: We reject a magisterium today which contradicts the magisterium of the past on faith and morals.

And therefore we must choose one of two things: either we reject Vatican II, judging that it is contrary to Tradition,

Lionel: There is an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is the result of a wrong premise. Both the Vatican and the SSPX are using it. Change the premise and it is a different Council.

but at the same time contradicting the only possible magisterium, the living magisterium, which is today’s (the magisterium of Benedict XVI), and we are no Catholics but Protestants; or else we decide not to be Protestants and we are obliged to accept Vatican II so as to obey the living magisterium, which is today’s, declaring that the Council is in conformity with Tradition.

Lionel. The Council with the premise of us 'being able to see the dead saved on earth', is not in conformity with tradition. Neither is it rational.

This is a dilemma, in other words, a problem with no apparent solution beside the two that are indicated: if we try to avoid one of the two horns, we will not avoid the other. But in reality this dilemma is false. For there are such things as false dilemmas….

Lionel: The issue is the premise. Vatican Council II is the conclusion of the premise chosen. With the correct, rational premise there is no dilemma.

The two alternatives are avoidable, both at once, for there is a third solution. It is possible to reject Vatican II without being Protestant and while obeying the magisterium; it is possible not to be Protestant and to obey the magisterium without accepting Vatican II…. The dilemma is false because an indispensable distinction is omitted. If we make the distinction, we find the way out of the dilemma, because we show that there is a third alternative. Our response therefore consists in making that distinction.

Lionel: Without the false premise ecclesiology is traditional. Vatican Council II is not modernist but traditional.

…[the expression] ‘the living magisterium’ does not mean ‘as opposed to the past magisterium’; it means ‘as opposed to the posthumous magisterium’. This living magisterium is the magisterium of the present, but also that of the past. The objection to our position consists of combining ‘living magisterium’ and ‘present magisterium’ and of setting this ‘living magisterium’ in opposition to the past magisterium. This combination occurs because they situate themselves exclusively within the subject’s point of view. They no longer distinguish between two points of view: that of the office or function (in which the living magisterium is at the same time present and past) and the point of view of the subject (in which the living magisterium is present only). The two are confused and thus they reduce the living magisterium to the present magisterium...(Continued)

Lionel: The present magisterium can make mistakes when due to political pressure it says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/magisterium_or_living_tradition_fr_gleize_denounces_a_false_dilemma.htm