Double- speak continues with Ecclesia Dei and the CDF : Vatican Council II is not the real issue for the SSPX reconciliation

Ecclesia Dei and I interpret Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents differently. What if I was an SSPX bishop for example, or what if an SSPX bishop interpreted the Council as I do, would it be acceptable for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

No.It would not be acceptable. Otherwise they would have informed me about it a long time back.

The issue was never Vatican Council II. The issue was always ideology.The SSPX had to accept the leftist ideology in the interpretation of magisterial documents and only then they could be given canonical status.

For me Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria it was always a rupture.

But they just couldn't create a rupture, there had to be a theological means.

So they accepted the false premise used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.This changed the traditional interpretation on EENS.

They then interpreted the hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II as referring to known and objective people saved outside the Church.So LG 16 because a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries. It was no more like it was   for the missionaries in the 16th century Pope Benedict confirmed it last year for any one who still had doubts.

I however have found out their mistake. I am not going into sedevacantism and nor am I going to be a traditionalist who rejects the Council since he does not want to accept a breach with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors etc).

So now if there was an SSPX bishop or priest at the St. Benedict Center or an FSSP priest who announced that they accept Vatican Council II just as I do.....it will not be acceptable.

The SSPX could state that Pope Benedict said that the issue was doctrinal and so they are now affirming Vatican Council II and they have been given permission to offer  the Latin Mass with Summorum Pontificum.

No way.

It has to be Vatican Council II in which LG 16 refers to visible people saved outside the Church even if practically there are no such cases.

So the Nicene Creed to has to be changed.

EENS has already been changed in the 1949 Letter with invisible for us baptism of desire etc being a visible exception to the dogma EENS.

This is how Cardinal Raymond Burke ,Joseph Shaw and the signatories of the Filial Correction interpret Vatican Council II.

In the 2012 General Chapter Statement the SSPX affirmed EENS without the irrational premise, it was a Feeneyite version of EENS and Ecclesia Dei did not announce that they had accepted it.

So now we know that Vatican Council II is not the real issue for the SSPX to receive  canonical status.The SSPX has to interpret invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc  as referring to known cases,visible people saved without 'faith and baptism'. So then LG 16 is a break with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS, it is a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th century.This is how they do it at the Bishops Conferences world wide.It is only then that Vatican Council II will be acceptable to Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishops Pozzo and Di Noia.There has to be a hermeneutic of rupture while they in public speak of a hermeneutic of continuity.

In March 2016 Pope Benedict announced that there was a hermeneutic of rupture with EENS (Avvenire) and it was caused by 'the development' in Vatican Council II and all along he has been speaking about a possible hermeneutic of continuity with Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades