The traditionalists are using the same innovative theology as Archbishop Augustine di Noia and Cardinal Muller at the Vatican

There is a foundation of doctrine and dogma that the Church has built for us over the course of 2000 years--solid and settled. if their is an "innovative, new theology" emanating from Vat II, or elsewhere that is at odds with what has previously been defined, it is null and void.
Lionel:
Why do you say it is null and void?The Vatican Curia and even the traditionalists use it.

Dr.John Dudley and the schools in Dallas
MARCH 14, 2014
Dr.John Dudley a professor at the Fischer-More College uses a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. He is not aware of this premise. So he rejected Vatican Council II in its entirety. The same false premise used by Dr.John Dudley is the norm for the interpretation of Vatican Council II in all the schools in Dallas.

Dr. John Dudley states:

"I would argue that it is an dangerous standpoint for Catholics to say that they accept the II Vatican Council with the exception of those passages that contradict traditional Catholic teaching. There are so many passages that contradict traditional teaching that I would argue that it is of the greatest importance to entirely reject the II Vatican Council and to consider it comparable to the Second Council of Ephesus in 449AD which was rejected by the Council of Calcedon in 451. 

[Editor’s Note: The author later corrected this statement by acknowledging that the better analogy is to use the Second Council of Constantinople, which was a valid ecumenical council but was so deleterious to the life of the Church that it was eventually ignored and forgotten.] Catholics are in general ignorant of what the Second Vatican Council actually said. They need to know what the Council said and to know what is wrong with it and why it is incompatible with their Faith, and this is an important task of education."-Dr.John Dudley Fellow & Professor of Philosophy and Classical Studies, Fischer More College.

In the passages which contradict traditional teaching Dr.Dudley,a traditionalist, is using the premise of being able to see the dead who are saved in Heaven (LG 16, UR 3, LG 5, NA 2 etc) and who are exceptions to the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc. This is an innovation. This is the new theology.For Prof. Dudley LG 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) etc refer to visible for uscases instead of being invisible and hypothetical.This is a factual error.It is with this objective error that he interpreted Vatican Council II.He interpreted all hypothetical references as being objective! They would have to be objective to exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The same error is being made during Religion Class in Catholic schools at Forth Worth and the rest of Dallas.
The traditionalist here are using the same innovative theology as Archbishop Augustine di Noia and Cardinal Muller at the Vatican.
-Lionel Andrades
http://fishermore.edu/faculty/...

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2847-the-lutheran-pope-ecu-maniacs-in-sweden

_______________________________________________________

Comment from The Remnant Newspaper

There is a foundation of doctrine and dogma that the Church has built for us over the course of 2000 years--solid and settled.
Lionel:
Yes I agree with you.
However when Vatican's CDF and Ecclesia Dei teach an error who is there to correct it?
HERE IS ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA WITH THE MISTAKE.HE USES THE INNOVATIVE THEOLOGY.

Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text below?

I mentioned ithat Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition in itself.

It is only a break with Tradition if:-

1.It is assumed that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016.

2.It is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Cushng the Archbishop of Boston.

3.It is assumed that Cushingism is the acceptable new theology which replaces Feeneyism.

Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text quoted below?

HERE IT IS.IT IS AVAILABLE ON LINE.

ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DO NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS.

Archbiship Di Noia when specifically asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register says the following. 

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.

http://www.ncregister.com/dail...

ANALYSE HIS NON ORTHODOX STATEMENT 
But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it.

Lionel:

Here he infers that there is known salvation outside the Church. He infers that Vatican Council II says there is known salvation outside the Church.He means the baptism of desire refers to the possibility of salvation outside the Church and so also being saved in invincible ignorance. However this possibility is a personally known case for him. Someone objectively visible.Otherwise why would he mention it with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members?

Known salvation is the key. If there is known salvation outside the Church then the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries has been changed.There is an exception even when the dogma suggests there is no exception(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted.

Lionel:

He infers here that Lumen Gentium 8, 'elements of sanctification and grace' , refer to known cases, objectively visible cases and so it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Can we know of someone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' in 2016 or over the last 20 years, or in the past?

I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.'
Lionel:

Here he actually says that he can judge them! He can know of people who will go to Heaven who are not members of the Catholic Church.He suggests that he knows of Anglicans and Lutherans who will not die with mortal sin on their soul in the future. So not only can Jesus judge them but he too can judge individual cases!

1.It is assumed that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016.For Archbishop Di Noia LG 8 refers to a visible case.It is not just a hypothethetical case.

2.It is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston.

Archbishop Di Noia assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy for affirming EENS in which hypothetical cases were NOT exceptions to the dogma.

3.It is assumed that Cushingism is the acceptable new theology which replaces Feeneyism.

The members of the CDF/Ecclesia Dei are Cushingites. They assumes imaginary cases are not imaginary in the present times. They infer hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.So with this irrational premise they then conclude that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.

They know there is a choice.They know that if they accept EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney then pastorially Vatican Council Ii would be reconciled with EENS and Tradition.

Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text quoted above?

THIS IS A THEOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND NO ONE HAS PROTESTED.

WITHOUT THIS INNOVATION VATICAN COUNCIL WOULD BE SAYING ALL JEWS AND MUSLIMS NEED TO FORMALLY CONVERT INTO THE CHURCH WITH FAITH AND BAPTISM.

Would Archbishop Di Noia and Cardinal Muller be able to affirm Vatican Council II without the innovation?

-Lionel Andrades