I affirm the traditional teaching on religious liberty,other religions and ecumenism, without rejecting Vatican Council II

It is said by the Society of St.Pius X (SOS) that Dignitatis Humanae(DH) contradicts the traditional teaching. DH refers to the religious liberty of non Catholics in a state with a secular Constituion and not a Catholic Confessional State. In a Catholic Confessional State of the past it was different.DH is observing a reality in a state with a secular Constituion.

For a Catholic there is no separation of Church and State and DH does not state that there is one.

Jesus is the only Saviour of the world and outside the Church there is no salvation (Ad Gentes 7) .So all political and social laws must have Jesus at its centre.They must be oriented to Jesus according to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. 

Other religions are false paths to salvation ( Ad Gentes 7) since outside the Church there is no known salvation in 2014.We do not know any one saved outside the Church and Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says all need to enter the Church as through a door(CCC 846).The Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CCC 845).

The main issue in Vatican Council II for the SSPX is other religions.When an irrational premise is used in the interpretation then Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the traditional teachings on other religions. 
Bishop Richard Williamson and the SSPX (SOS) priests use this irrational premise. So does Bishop Bernard Fellay and the other SSPX bishops. 

Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. The Christian communities (Protestants etc) do not have Catholic Faith, which include the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church. They need to convert for salvation.

So on other religions and ecumenism Vatican Council II is traditional.

Without the premise Vatican Council II has the hermenutic of continuity and says  all need 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation.NA 2,UR3,LG16,LG8 etc refer to possibilities known only to God,.They refer to hypothetical cases for us. So they are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism).

There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism. Vatican Council is Feeneyite without the false premise of the dead being visible exceptions to Tradition. With the visible-dead premise the Council is Cushingite and heretical.The SSPX  is using the Cushingite version of Vatican Council II.This is the version approved by the Jewish Left and the Vatican Curia.This is the version used by Monsgr.Gherardini, Roberto de Mattei, and Fr. Siano and Fr.Lanzetta of the Franciscans of the Immaculate(FFI).

So I can affirm the traditional teaching on other religions, religious liberty and ecumenism, without rejecting Vatican Council II.

The SSPX is rejecting Vatican Council II because Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has rejected it.

1) He was not aware of Vatican Council II with or without the premise.He was not aware of the premise being the cause of the break with the past.

2) He did not notice the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He also assumed  that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Hindu in Tibet can be saved in his religion, this is true, but we don't know any such case, defacto.He is saved through Jesus and the Church, true, but he is not an explicit case to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

So it must always be clarified,as I mentioned in an earlier post, if one is referring to a Vatican Council II with or without the irrational premise.

Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7 indicates most people are on the way to Hell without 'faith and baptism'.
This is what I believe. This is how I interpret Vatican Council II.

Vatican Council II does not say that salvation in Heaven is visible to us.It does not say there is known salvation outside the Church.It does not state that Nostra Aetate 2, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8 are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The text does not make this inference.So I do not use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
This is how I interpret the Council.
It is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors,the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Council of Trent and the rest of Tradition.There is no  hermenutic of rupture.

We have found the missing link, the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
We now know what makes Vatican Council II traditional or non traditional.It is: the false premise!.

We need to target the false inference and the theological train will get back on the rails.

Identify the premise and change the Church!

-Lionel Andrades