By the constant Magisterium the SSPX really means the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise

Comments from an earlier blog post.1

David:
Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would then be in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

Huh? I thought SSPX rejected Vatican II...or am I thinking of some other SSPx group?

Lionel:The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. So the Council is a break with the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council is a break with also the General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma.

Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise would make the Council Feeneyite. It would affirm the stict interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, popes and saints.
_________________

Its also unclear who you are quoting when, or when you are speaking as yourself in this article. For instance in bold "I would like to clarify that I accept Vatican Council II...." Who is speaking there?
Lionel.I am referring to myself.
I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.
_________________________

And what is the point?
Lionel:The point is that we can interpret Vatican Council II with or without the premise.The result is traditional or non traditional.
There is a choice. There is an option for example before the SSPX etc.
___________________________


This article is written so haphazardly I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
Lionel:I usually am writing in a hurry. And I certainly was yesterday as I needed to get to church in time.
________________________

And I think its safe to say that you have made many errors with respect to reporting the facts.
Lionel:I don't think so.What I have said could be new for you as it is for many others.
_________________________

You also never actually defined what you are referring to as "the false premise."
Lionel:
The false premise is reasoning and inferring that persons now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water) are personally known to us in the present times, 2015.

It is to infer that the dead now saved in Heaven are physically visible and known to us in the present times.

This is the false premise.

If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/if-pope-uses-irrational-premise-and.html

Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frrobert-barron-in-catholicism-uses.html

 

___________________________________________

 

Again, you need to clarify this confusion, because you say the SSPX General Statement 2012 supports Vatican II. But I looked up the said statement here and it says:
"The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium
Lionel:
By the constant Magisterium they mean the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise.
Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing brought the irrational premise into the Church and this was accepted by the post 1949 magisterium.
_______________________

of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.
Lionel:
Marchetti's inference rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was also a rejection of the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X on salvation.
Without the strict interpretation of the dogma we lost the basis for affirming the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political systems.
It also changes the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism, with extra ecclesiam nulla salus out of the way.
__________________

We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium
Lionel:
They mean the Magisterium before 1949 which has been 'interrupted' with Marchetti's irrationality, his being able to see the dead-saved who were in 1949 'explicit' exceptions to the the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
________________________

which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere."
Lionel:
Yes the magisterium without the Marchetti Inference, the false inference.
_____________________

So perhaps you're interpreting the SSPX General Statement 2012 with an "irrational premise"?
Lionel:
I am referring to the SSPX General Chapter Statement's reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus without exceptions.The text mentions it.

Someone or many at that General Chapter Statement understood what was the real basis for all the confusion in the Catholic Church.
_________________________

No, there's no perhaps about it; you are. So I'm still trying to figure what it is you intend to say.Lionel:
I hope what I said above is helpful.
Basically I am saying that Vatican Council II supports the SSPX traditional position on other religions and Christian communities.
Vatican Council II also contradicts the Vatican Curia's interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally. The Vatican Curia is interpreting the Council irrationality,i.e with an irrational premise.

-Lionel Andrades

1

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html