VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NON NEGOTIABLE AND IN HARMONY WITH EENS: WE DON'T BOW BEFORE THE LEFEBVRIST OR LEFTIST ERROR

Comment from The Eponymous Flower :  Do Jews and Muslims Decide the Conditions for the Recognition of the SSPX?

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NON NEGOTIABLE AND IN HARMONY WITH EENS: WE DON'T BOW BEFORE THE LEFEBVRIST OR LEFTIST ERROR
We Catholics need to affirm Vatican Council II without the Archbishop Lefebvre error.
We need to tell everyone, liberals and pro-SSPX supporters, that Vatican Council II is non negotiable.
Vatican Council II interpreted in line with EENS, and without the Lefebvre error, is indispensable.
We Catholics are not obliged to accept an interpretation of the Council II based on hypothethical cases being defacto and known in 2016.
We maintain good relations with Jews and Muslims not because of Vatican Council II but because Jesus asks us to do so.However there must be good relations with rational and traditional doctrines of the Church.Not those of the SSPX or the two popes.
Lisa Palmieri-Billig,Yahya Pallavicini,Rabbi David Rosen and the two popes interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as being visible when for me they are invisible.
This is the rational option Catholics have in interpreting the Council.Presently they are confused with the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre, Chris Ferrara, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others.
Their version of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Since it was with a false premise.
Vox Cantoris, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza and others cannot think for themself or they emotionally need Christopher Ferrara to think for them.Then Ferrara will only follow the line of Lefebvre even though a false premise is the basis of his theology.
He repeats the same nonsense every year like Bishop Fellay about a doctrinal problem, which they both are a part of.
Ask yourself why cannot any one refute me technically ? They cannot since they know that I am correct and that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong.
They would like to prove me wrong only to prove Lefebvre correct -but they cannot.
For instance they say that the MHFM rejects the baptism of desire. This is a critical point against the Dimond Brothers. They cannot say the same for me. I accept BOD except that I am saying that I accept implicit for us BOD and reject explicit for us BOD. BOD can only be explicit for God.

Then they can criticise the sedevacantists for rejecting Pope Francis. They cannot use this argument against me.

There are others who criticise the SSPX and the traditionalists for rejecting Vatican Council II. They cannot say this against me. I accept Vatican Council II.
The liberals interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS. I do not.
I do not reject EENS.
And now I am saying that Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and EENS ( Feeneyite) is non negotiable.
So technically no one has been able to show me where I am wrong doctrinally.They also know that I am correct doctrinally and can only criticise me for commenting on blogs,including their own, in which they cannot refute me.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/08/do-jews-and-muslims-decide-conditions.html?showComment=1470665644435#c137306136010315377