Saturday, August 23, 2014

Fr.Angelo Geiger FFI is making the same error as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the crypto Lefebvrists

a) Archbishop Lefebvre 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.Fr.Angelo Geiger has had the same problem.
b) The Archbishop 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.This is the reasoning being used by Fr.Geiger.

So Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of rupture for Fr.Angelo Geiger with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He accepts this.Now even after knowing that the rupture is caused by the false premise,he will  not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
1.He does not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise.
2.He does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Hindu in Tibet 1 can be saved in his religion, it is true, but we don't know any such case, defacto.The Hindu in Tibet is saved through Jesus and the Church, true, but he is not physically visible to us in the present times to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto, explicit exception.All need to convert into the Church in 2014 for salvation and the Hindu being saved in Tibet is irrelevant.It is a possibility, something theoretical.

Archbishop Lefebvre inferred that the baptism of desire was  visible to us and that these cases were personally known to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.The Franciscans of the Immaculate religious also make this same error. 
The difference between them and Fr.Geiger is that they reject Vatican Council II ( with the premise) while Fr.Geiger and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi accept Vatican Council II with the premise.
Archbishop Lefebvre made the same mistake in Vatican Council II.It was the Cushingite error. This is the error of inferring that there are non Catholics, who are now in Heaven but they are allegedly visible to us on earth. Since they are visible to the eye on earth, it is inferred, that they are exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water to avoid Hell.This is the inference that Fr.Geiger uses in the innterpretation of Vatican Council II. This is Vatican Council II with the false premise i.e being able to see the dead on earth who are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that being saved with ' ray of the Truth' (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc referred to visible for us cases.So  for him there  were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.The Vatican Curia and the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate use the same reasoning. They instead accept Vatican Council II with this  false premise and the resulting heresy.The heresy of denying the defined dogma on salvation and changing the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed becomes "I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin"( and not one, the baptism of water).
Without the Cushingite premise Vatican Council II would be traditional but Archbishop Lefebvre did  not know it.Fr.Geiger knows it. Yet he will not affirm the traditional teachings.He will not comment.

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting  the general interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the premise. He was not aware though,that it was the premise which caused a break with the past.Fr.Geiger has been informed but he will not comment.
With the use of the irrational premise Fr.Angelo Geiger, the Secretary General of the Franciscans of the Immaculate,Fr.Alfonso Bruno, and the Apostolic Commissioner Fr.Fidenzio Volpi are denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They are denying an ex cathedra dogma which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' according the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.They are rejecting the ex cathedra dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 which did not mention any exceptions. Fr.Angelo Geiger and the others infer there is known salvation outside the Church. They infer that those non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are visible to us. So these cases become explicit exeptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is a denial of an ex cathedra dogma and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.They are allowed to offer Holy Mass.
They are also rejecting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.
It is this public heresy that they want the main group of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept.
They want the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate  to rubber stamp Vatican Council II with an irrationality and so reject the de fide teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. It is only then that they will be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and teach at the seminary.

This is all being done officially and openly.
Fr.Angelo Geiger uses the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II similar to Archbishop Lefebvre, whom he has been criticizing for years.
-Lionel Andrades


Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
Vatican Council II with the irrational premise used in its interpretation has become a poisoned apple

Vatican Council II with the irrational premise used in its interpretation has become a poisoned apple

Fr.Angelo Geiger, Mary Victrix
For a group of people who believe that there is no content to the term “crypto-Lefebvrism” those at Rorate Caeli along with Roberto de Mattei devote a good deal of time and space to the question. They also seem to be quite concerned about the criticisms I have been lodging, devoting as much time and energy as they have to the question, while making sure that they avoid linking to my blog.
But I am willing to concede that the crypto-Lefebvrists are ghosts. At least, they sure do behave like them. Etherial creatures they are, lurking in the shadows and working in the dark.
The latest contribution about this matter on Rorate Caeli is from pseudonymous Fr. Pio Pace who claims that the Holy See has been engaged in the “programmed destruction of the Franciscan of the Immaculate.” Not surprisingly, he calls the allegation of “cryto-Lefebvrism” simply the absurd and baseless pretext for the destruction of the FI. All the while he employs a revisionist historical narrative of the dialogue of the Holy See with the SSPX in the service of his allegation of the Church’s attack on traditionalism within the FI.
I have written an account of the dialogue of the Holy See with the Society of St. Pius X, which you can find here. The facts of the case show clearly that the leaders of the Society never intended to modify their doctrinal position, nor was the Society ever near an agreement with the Holy See.
The Society of St.Pius X and the Vatican side, during the doctrinal talks initiated by Pope Benedict XVI, were using the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, representing the Vatican,  accepted the Council with an irrational inference used in the interprettaion.The  SSPX , also using that same irrational premise, rejected the Council.
 Furthermore, my account also documents the collusion between the Society and the crypto-Lefebvrists on the outside, including those associated with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. I urge you to take the time to read the account. It makes everything else here much more understandable
Scapegoating Pope Francis
Fr. Pio’s essay is likely to leave the poorly informed reader with the impression that the current want of movement in the dialogue of the SSPX with the Holy See has something to do with Pope Francis and his lack of interest in the Society. But the truth is that the dialogue was effectively over before Pope Benedict announced his resignation. (Again, read that account.)
The dialogue is not over. No one has as yet referred to the issue of the false premise. I have asked Fr.Geiger to answer TWO QUESTIONS and he will not.Those two questions show that Vatican Council II is not a break with the past.This is the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II according to his new superior Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.
It is true that Ecclesia Dei sent a letter to Bishop Fellay on January 8, 2013 asking him to accept the doctrinal preamble as it was, but this was a last ditch effort after the personal letter of Archbishop di Noia of December 8, 2012 went unheeded.
Archbishop de Noia wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II in which all salvation of non Catholics is assumed to refer to cases which are physically visible on earth.This is fantasy. Upon this fantasy he has built his theology.
 Pope Benedict announced his resignation on February 11, before the deadline for the Society’s response (February 22), which seems to indicate that he was letting everyone know that the window of opportunity was closing. This had nothing to do with the person who would actually succeed him more than a month later.
Fr. Pio imagines what would have happened had Pope Benedict, in spite of the SSPX’s unresponsiveness, gone ahead an reintegrated the Society after the announcement of the Holy Father’s resignation but before its execution. Had this occurred, he says, it could have entirely changed the outcome of the subsequent conclave and the current position of the SSPX.
But this does not take into account the fact that the dialogue simply failed due to the disintegration that occurred prior the announcement of the resignation. The SSPX had their chance—the best chance that they could have ever hoped for, and they let it pass. 
The SSPX still has a chance today. If Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions,it will be Archbishop Augustine di Noia and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi who will be sitting uneasy.This is perhaps the reason that Fr.Geiger will not answer the TWO QUESTIONS.If Vatican Council II is traditional, the SSPX are in the Church and their opponents are in public heresy.
Pope Benedict could have held on if he had believed that a reconciliation was a realistic possibility, or he could have simply regularized the Society on its own terms had he been as determined as Bishop Fellay suggested he was. But he did not regularize the Society, whose representatives then declared their satisfaction that they had held to their principles and that the episcopal consecrations of 1988 thus proved to be fully justified. And it was Pope Benedict, and no other, who turned over the future the reformed-minded cardinals.
False Pretext
So it is not at all fair to say that Pope Francis ignores the Society. The dialogue had breathed its last prior to any talk of a new pontiff and Bishop Fellay had already expressed his being resigned to a long period of waiting for more advantageous conditions.   But Fr. Pio’s assessment is based on the same false pretext popularized by Roberto de Mattei, namely, that Pope Benedict himself was the sponsor of the “permanent ‘interrogation’” of Vatican II, and at least implicitly had been encouraging the Society to maintain its “loyal” opposition. (Read that account.)
Fr. Pio is correct in saying that Pope Francis does not share the theological preoccupations of his predecessor,
Like his predecessor Pope Benedict he uses the irrational theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to interpret Vatican Council II.
 and therefore, the questions of continuity and discontinuity do not hold the same place in his thought. But in this regard, there are several things to consider beyond the obvious differences between the former head of the Holy Office and the former Jesuit superior.
First of all, the Benedictine pontificate ispso facto has permanent value in the life of the Church. Pope Benedict has left a patrimony that will not and cannot be ignored. It is condescending and shortsighted to think Pope Francis is ignorant or dismissive of this.
Secondly, Fr. Pio minimizes the several references of Pope Francis to the work of Archbishop Marccheto. That Pope Francis is an outsider to the debate does not mean he is uninterested. But he has reason to remain aloof from the debate over continuity—the same reason that Pope Benedict ignored the appeal of Monignor Gherardini for a great clarification and reordering Council. Fr. Pio maintains the false tradition that Pope Benedict is the sponsor of the great questioning, and that he himself believed that it was urgent and necessary to prove continuity or otherwise abandon the Council. Pope Benedict ignored this contention for a reason, and Pope Francis does as well.
Finally, Fr. Pio leaves the reader with the impression that the situation with the SSPX was ripe for forward movement and hands-on intervention as Pope Francis ascended to the Chair of St. Peter. But actually the opposite is true, as I have shown irrefutably in the post already mentioned several times. The situation when Pope Francis was elected was altogether different than the one in 2007, when Summorum Pontificumwas promulgated and then in 2009, when the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops was lifted. Pope Benedict had opened the doors wide to the Society and took them under his wing. It seems to me that this opportunity was exploited by the leaders of the Society to further their own ends and concluded in an inevitable stalemate. The principles expounded by Rome and the SSPX are substantially and intractably at odds. This is the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached after years of failed dialogue.
The Doctrinal Agreement
But not according to Fr. Pio. On the contrary, he contends that, in the reflected light of Pope Francis’ exclusively pastoral preoccupations and his general lack of interest in anything seriously theological, now Vatican officials believe it was a mistake to have submitted “too strict” a doctrinal statement to Bishop Fellay for his signature.
But what was the real difference between the doctrinal statement that Bishop Fellay that he ultimately rejected and the one he was willing to sign? It was the difference between fundamentally accepting the continuity of the Council and insisting that such continuity must be proven before accepted. 
It was ignoring the use of the false inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council. The inference causes the rupture.
What Fr. Pio fails to mention, but which Bishop Fellay openly admitted on December 30, 2012, is that Pope Benedict not only agreed to the strengthening of the text of the agreement (55:10) but he also insisted in writing on three points: 1) the SSPX must accept that it is the magisterium which is the judge of what is traditional or not; 
The magisterium made a mistake in 1949. The Holy Office assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the rejection of an infallible teaching and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
2) the SSPX must accept that the Council is an integral part of Tradition;
They must accept a Vatican Council interpreted without the false premise.The Council interpreted with the false premise is heresy.
 3) the SSPX must accept that the New Mass is valid and licit (54:43-56:39).
They accept that the New Mass is valid and licit. They want peremission to offer exclusively only the Tridentine Rite Mass. Pope Benedict was open to this.
But neither the SSPX nor those represented by Roberto de Mattei could fulfill even the demands of the weaker agreement. This is so because the discussion of such matters among traditionalists sympathetic to the SSPX is not simply the exercise of theology in the service of the magisterium,
To assume that the dead are visible exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation is irrational theology.
 but counterrevolutionary activism.
To oppose heresy is not 'counterrevolutionary activism'.
This needs to be emphasized. There is all kind of talk about “legitimate” theological discussion, study and explanation of difficult conciliar passages. But this is not really the fundamental issue.
This is the fundamental issue.To assume that there are non Catholics in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire etc who are visible on earth, is absurd.
 The Society and its supporters could not even come close to complying with the CDF’s Instruction Donum Veritatis, on the “Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,” because their basic work has nothing to do with academic theology but with propaganda and community organizing. Indeed, the anticonciliar agenda is carried out from the pulpit, in seminary and religious formation, in popular literature, in journalism and on the blogs.
When the Council is interpreted with an irrational premise it must be opposed at all forums.
 In other words, it is a complete anticonciliar propaganda machine and an instrument of political agitation. 
The interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise is the version approved by the Left.This is 'political agitation' in the Catholic Church.
And even if Pope Francis was as uninterested in theology as Fr. Pio suggests, which I do not believe for a second, he is nobody’s fool, and he understands what he would get if all he had was a weak, toothless agreement from the Society.
We are not talking about an agreement involving mere abstractions. In fact, the touchy point in the doctrinal preamble was not about what one may and may not befree to believe, but about what an ecclesiastically approved society with a ministerial mandate may actively promote.
They are not willing to approve a Vatican Council II interpreted with a fantasy-value and approved by the ecclesiatical authorities.
And therefore, it is about whether a charism can or cannot be harmoniously integrated into the life of the Church. It is about whether it is practical and advisable to grant the Society such a wide measure of independence, which would be afforded by a personal prelature, if the Society does not actually agree to behave differently than it has up to now.
I have written an account of the dialogue of the Holy See with the Society of St. Pius X, which you can find here. The facts of the case show clearly that the leaders of the Society never intended to modify their doctrinal position, nor was the Society ever near an
agreement with the Holy See.

The Society of St.Pius X and the Vatican side, during the doctrinal talks initiated by Pope Benedict XVI, were using the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, representing the Vatican,  accepted the Council with an irrational inference used in the interprettaion.The  SSPX , also using that same irrational premise, rejected the Council.
 Furthermore, my account also documents the collusion between the Society and the crypto-Lefebvrists on the outside, including those associated with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. I urge you to take the time to read the account. It makes everything else here much more understandable

Fr. Pio goes on to suggest that now with Pope Francis’ lack of doctrinal concern there is an openness of certain Vatican officials to admitting the Society without a strict doctrinal agreement, but, unfortunately, the Society is now much too volatile to accept any agreement with Rome. But Fr. Pio is simply rewriting history. The SSPX has never been close to an agreement with Rome and this has nothing to do with Pope Francis. Furthermore, a regularization without an agreement would be seen as a vindication of the Society’s long held principles and would be used as a pretext to continue their counterrevolution. Neither Pope Benedict nor Pope Francis is so naïve.
The false premise has to be identified and then an agreement sought.
And this brings me back to the allegation of Fr. Volpi, the Apostolic Commissioner for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, that the problems of the Institute are related to crypto-Lefebvrism, a contention that I have already defended multiple times.
Fr.Volpi is using the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. This has not been denied by Fr.Alfonso Bruno,the Secretary General of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
 Fr. Pio Pace, concurring with Rorate Caeli and Robero de Mattei, pretends he has no idea what I am talking about, and that, in fact, I am not really saying anything meaningful.
Crypto-Lefebvrism is theoretical and practical agreement with the anticonciliar ideas of the SSPX,
I oppose Vatican Council II interpreted with the false inference . I am not rejecting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.I affirm Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise.The SSPX and the Vatican can do the same and there could be a reconciliation.
 involving whatever dissimulation is necessary to continue to operate within full communion. Bishop Fellay has made reference to bishops who act in this fashion, who are in agreement with the SSPX, but more or less camouflage their intentions in order not to be removed from influence (1:14:00-1:16:30).
An example of this is the attempt to justify the Society’s behavior and the theories of its sympathizers, like Roberto de Mattei, on the false basis that Pope Benedict was the one that encouraged the questioning of the “hermeneutic of continuity” The falsity of this is shown clearly, both from my arguments here, as well as my documentationof the dialogue between the Society and Rome.
Another instance is the “95% argument,” namely, that the SSPX agrees with 95% of what Vatican II teaches and therefore could never be construed logically to be fundamentally opposed to the Council.
Without the irrationality Vatican Council II is 100% traditional.
 This is simply sophistry contrived to produce sympathy toward the Society. It is abundantly clear that the SSPX believes Vatican II is a poisoned apple.
Yes with the irrational premise used in its interpretation Vatican Council II has become a poisoned apple.
 It does not matter what percentage of the Council the Society accepts. Anyone, who has read the sources I have pointed to knows that the SSPX believes the Council and the Mass it produced to be a Modernist, Freemasonic and Jewish betrayal of tradition.
Yes with the false premise, doctrines and dogmas have been discarded.-Lionel Andrades
One final example, Chris Ferrara claims that no “crypto-Lefebvrist” would question the liceity of the Ordinary Form, if by that one means “the Latin Typical Edition of the Mass of Paul VI celebrated in Latin with a high altar, Gregorian Chant, and no communion in the hand or altar girls, a la the Brompton Oratory.” But I have personally heard traditionalists argue against the liceity of the Ordinary Form, reasoned from Quo Primum. There is also an argument against it liceity in the comments on my own blog based on the PECD’s Prot. 156/2009, though the author claims it is a position he does not hold, or at least not firmly.
The Haunting
I imagine that readers will notice that I do nothing here to substantively defend Vatican II against the traditionalist arguments. My purpose is different. Here I just want to hold their feet to the fire and get them to commit themselves to their position like the counterrevolutionaries they are.
I understand the reasons for not doing so, especially among priests and bishops, whose positions would be at risk within the postconciliar Church if they came clean. For this reason, Internet anonymity and pseudonymity are very effective tools of the counterrevolution.   But it is bad business all the same, and someone has to point it out.
And I have just the motive to do it, since the crypto-Lefebvrists have chosen to make the religious Institute to which I have been committed for more than twenty-five years the battlefield of their little war on the Council. That is one of the reasons why the Holy See has intervened within the FI in the manner as it has, and all the complaining just makes the problem even more evident. The more people who clearly have agendas claim that “crypto-Lefebvrists are just ghosts, the more it is clear they have something to hide.

Prof.Roberto de Mattei and the false premise

De Mattei answers dissident leader of Franciscans of the Immaculate

Carta_di_identità1-378x278The ultimate criteria of judgment for a Catholic must be the one of the Church: to love and hate what the Church loves and hates: loving the truth in all of its uniqueness and integrity and hating error in all of its multiplicity of expressions. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy remain the final measure of judgment which Christian Reason must be subject to.
The false premise came into the Church in 1949. It is not orthodoxy.

In 1542, Pope Paul II, instituted the Congregation of the Roman Inquisition, afterwards called the Holy Office and nowadays named the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the aim of guarding the purity of orthodoxy.
The Holy Office in 1949 overlooked the false premise in the case of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 In 1571, Saint Pius V, supported it with the Congregation of Index which had the task of indicating all the books deforming correct Catholic Doctrine. In 2002, L’Index Librorum prohibitorum 1600-1966 was published by the Centre d’Études de la Renaissance at Sherbrooke University, and gathers together all of the condemned works until the suppression of the Index, which Paul VI wanted in 1966. From Protestantism to Illuminism, from Catholic liberalism to modernism, there is not one heterodox writer that has not been singled out and condemned for the good of the Church and for the salvation of souls.
It is heresy to state that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Index established a precious instrument to help Catholics know and detest errors and heresies. The Holy Office was the supreme tribunal which every Catholic could turn to when they had doubts and perplexities in matters of faith and morals. To the Congregation for the Faith, which followed the Holy Office, we owe, in recent years, a number of notifications, such as Dominus Jesus in 2000 or Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Homosexual Unions in 2003.

The false premise was overlooked in Vatican Council II as it was in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc.The text was and is interpreted by many with an irrational inference.
After the disturbing declarations by Cardinal Kasper at the Consistory in February 2014, on the theme of the divorced and remarried, and the equally disquieting document Instrumentum laboris, presented on June 26th, in preparation for the upcoming Synod on the Family, it would be right to expect a clarifying statement from the Congregation (today presided over by Cardinal Müller) about the grave problems on the table in matters relating to the family and sexual morality.
Today, however, there is an attempt to substitute orthodoxy with “orthopraxy”.
The international theological publication “Concilium” dedicated its latest number to the theme: From “anathema sit” to “Who am I to judge?” starting with Pope Francis’ famous sentence on homosexuality: “who am I to judge,” pronounced during the return flight from Brazil in July 2013. The authors define orthodoxy as “metaphysical violence”. They retain that the formulas and dogmas cannot comprehend historical evolution, but each problem must be collocated in its historical and socio-political context. The concept of orthodoxy must be surpassed, or at least re-dimensioned, since, it is used as “a point of reference to suffocate freedom of thought and as a weapon to control and punish.” (“Concilium”, 2/2014, p.11). The primacy of doctrine must be substituted by pastoral praxis, as Father Juan Carlos Scannone explains, intervening in support of Cardinal Kasper, in the article, Serene Theology On One’s Knees , found in the “Civiltà Cattolica” of June 7, 2014.
The categories of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are being set aside as antiquated. And new semantic expressions are emerging. One of the most curious is “crypto-lefebvrianism”:
a term that Father Angelo Geiger F.I. recently used on his American site to discredit, not only myself, but also Rorate Caeli, a praiseworthy Catholic site, guilty of having expressed its concern about what is happening to the Franciscans of the Immaculate. For Father Geiger, it is all normal, and whoever places this normality in doubt is a “crypto-lefebvrian”.
Fr.Angelo Geiger uses the false premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts. He does not deny this in correspondence with me.
Who are the “crypto-lefebvrians”? They are those who, in the present state of confusion, even if they are not part of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, look to Catholic Tradition as a point of reference. They are the Catholics that want to stay orthodox and, to do so, they call on the definitive Magisterium of the Church, not less “living” and current than the indirect or non-defining Magisterium of the bishops and Pope presently reigning.

They are also those who use the false premise and are unaware of it.

Father Geiger accuses the Franciscans of the Immaculate faithful to Father Manelli, Rorate Caeli and myself of being against the Pope, the bishops and Vatican II.

It must be noted that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and accept the Council. The traditionalists also interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and reject the Council.

 We urge him to read the volume published by his confrere, Father Serafino M. Lanzetta, Vatican II: A pastoral council: Hermeneutic of the conciliar doctrines, Cantagalli, Siena, 2014. This work, conducted under the guidance of Professor Manfred Hauke, earned the author qualifications to teach at the Faculty of Theology in Lugano [Ticino, Switzerland].
Father Lanzetta explains that the teaching of Vatican II is placed on the lines of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, without demanding adherence of faith to it. “The most adequate theological qualification on the documents examined by us, salvo meliore iudicio, seems to be that of sententiae teologicae ad fidem pertinentes: questions on which the magisterium has still not pronounced itself definitively, of which negations could lead to placing in danger other truths where truth is guaranteed in its intimate link to Revelation.” (pp. 430-431).
When the false premise is used then there is a denial of the dogma on salvation and other related doctrines.

 The discussion on these theological theses is still free and open. The doctrines given by Vatican II, writes Father Lanzetta, must be read in the light of the perennial Tradition of the Church and the Council can do nothing but join this uninterrupted Tradition. (p.37) “The only thing that can be the guide in our understanding of Vatican II is the entire Tradition of the Church: Vatican II is not the first nor last council in the Church, but a moment in Her history.” (pp. 74-75). “The perennial Traditio Ecclesiae, is, therefore, the first hermeneutical criteria of Vatican II.” (p.75).
Vatican Council II does not contradict tradition when the irrational inference is avoided.

Is Padre Lanzetta, one of the Franciscans of the Immaculate who asked for dispensation to leave the Institute, a “crypto-lefebvrian”? If he is, then the head of the “crypto-lefebvrians” is Benedict XVI who proposed the reading of the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition and not Tradition in the light of Vatican II, as the School of Bologna would like it to be.
The School of Bologna is also using the irrational inference.

 Moreover, if Father Geiger wants to set Father Lanzetta against Archbishop Agostino Marchetto,defined by Pope Francis as “the best hermeneut of Vatican II,” 

 “the best hermeneut of Vatican II,” with the false premise.

he should know that Father Lanzetta and Professor de Mattei are part of a group of scholars which includes Archbishop Marchetto and that for more than two years, each with their own theological and historical identity, these have been examining in a constructive manner an in-depth study of the Second Vatican Council, with no mutual demonization

They have been unaware of the false premise.They have picked up the irrational theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.They interpret Vatican Council II with the same theology. -Lionel Andrades

The phrase In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas, dear to John XXIII, is rejected by those who use the Novus Ordo Missae and the Second Vatican Council to shut the mouths of the ones who ask questions in the interest of correct Catholic Faith.
Let us urge Father Geiger to substitute the false classifications with good arguments – if he is able to find them. What credits or discredits us before the Truth and Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Way the Truth and the Life (John, 4, 1-6) are not the denominational disputes, but the good use of our reason, which can never be in contradiction to our faith.
To the accusations from the nominalists, we respond with the words of St. Pacian of Barcelona: – Christianus mihi nomen est, catholicus cognomen. [Christian is my name, Catholic my surname.]
[Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana. Roberto de Mattei, Italian historian and academic, is the author, among many other books, of "The Second Vatican Council: an unwritten story" - for which he won the most prestigious Italian History prize, the Acqui Storia, in 2011. The object of his exemplary admonition above is self-confessedly one of the five Dissident friars who called for the intervention of the Congregation for Religious in their institute, with consequences, including of a liturgical nature, well known by all Catholics who love the Church.]