The 'magisterium' has not been aware ( or not made it known if aware) that it is the premise which decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or a break with Tradition.

The 'magisterium' has not been aware ( or not made it known if aware) that it is the premise which decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or a break with Tradition.The use of the premise causes a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The premise was first used in the Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

The magisterium before 1949 has been the interpreter of Tradition however the magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI made an objective mistake, a doctrinal error. It was this doctrinal error, a false premise with which the 'magisterium' interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and other magisterial documents including Vatican Council.

Vatican Council II can be read without the irrational premise and then it will affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but this version would be rejected by the Jewish Left and so of course the Vatican.

 

 

Readers will recall that on 13 June 2012, the former Prefect of the Holy Office, Cardinal William Levada, had delivered a doctrinal preamble to Fellay to sign. However, four days later, the Lefebvrian superior wrote a letter to Benedict XVI informing him that he could not agree to the terms laid out in the document. Benedict XVI replied on 30 June 2012 communicating his disappointment and repeating his request to the Lefebvrians to recognize that “the magisterium is the authentic interpreter of the Tradition,” that the Second Vatican Council agrees with Tradition and that the Novus Ordo Missae, the post-conciliar liturgical reform promulgated by Paul VI, was not only valid but also legitimate.-Vatican Insider,La Stampa

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/fellay-mueller-36488/

 

With comments:

 

Vatican Insider:

Readers will recall that on 13 June 2012, the former Prefect of the Holy Office, Cardinal William Levada, had delivered a doctrinal preamble to Fellay to sign. However, four days later, the Lefebvrian superior wrote a letter to Benedict XVI informing him that he could not agree to the terms laid out in the document. Benedict XVI replied on 30 June 2012 communicating his disappointment and repeating his request to the Lefebvrians to recognize that “the magisterium is the authentic interpreter of the Tradition,”

Lionel:

The magisterium before 1949 has been the interpreter of Tradition however  the magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI made an objective mistake, a doctrinal error. It was this doctrinal error, a false premise with which the 'magisterium' interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and other magisterial documents including Vatican Council. Vatican Council II read with the irrational premise is a break with Tradition and the SSPX has done correct to reject it.

Vatican Council II can be read without the irrational premise and then it will affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but this version would be rejected by the Jewish Left and so of course the Vatican. 

 

that the Second Vatican Council agrees with Tradition

Lionel:

The Second Vatican Council II only agrees with Tradition if the irrational premise is not used in the  interpretation. Unfortunately this  is the only Vatican Council II known to the 'magisterium'. The 'magisterium' has not been aware ( or not made it known if aware) that it is the premise which decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or a break with Tradition.

The use of the premise causes a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The premise was first used in the Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.This is the Missing Link which needs to be identified.It was not made known by the Catholic apologists of the past.Neither is it  known to the apologists today, who simply follow the past apologists without thinking.

Vatican Council II without the premise indicates, in Ad Gentes 7, that all Jews etc need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no exceptions in 2014.This means they all need to convert into the Catholic Church formally, to avoid Hell.This is never said by the 'magisterium'.Instead the premise is used with the interpretation of Nostra Aetate 2, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 etc as referring to cases alive in the present times who are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dead are alive! The dead are visible in the present times is the irrational premise used in the interpretation of LG 16,LG 8,AG 11 etc.

So Vatican Council II contradicts itself (AG 7 contradicts LG 16 etc)  and it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,when the premise is used and the 'magisterium' seems ignorant.Vatican Council II would be tripping over itself.

If the SSPX announced that they would accept Vatican Council II without the irrational premise, i.e all Jews and Muslims for example, need to convert into the Church for salvation (AG 7) and that  NA 2 etc would be accepted  only as being hypothetical possibilities but not exceptions to Ad Gentes, this would be rejected by the Vatican Curia, Since it would not be politically correct with the Jewish Left.

Cardinal Muller and Archbisop Di Noia when asked by La Stampa in 2012, about the Vatican-SSPX possible accord, said that in the agreement with the SSPX there would be nothing which would violate 'good relations with the Jews'.The Jewish Left objects to the SSPX claim that Jesus said Jews need to convert for salvation.

and that the Novus Ordo Missae, the post-conciliar liturgical reform promulgated by Paul VI, was not only valid but also legitimate.

Lionel:

However the Novus Ordo Mass ,like the Traditional Latin Mass for many, is based on an ecclesiology which comes from an interpretation of Vatican Council II with an irrational premise.

When traditionalists criticize Vatican Council II they should specify that they are referring to only the one with the premise.-Lionel Andrades