Without the theological error of the two popes, without the Ladaria Error, theologically, sedevacantists no more have reason to remain in sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II ?

Comments from the blog Vox Cantoris

Without the theological error of the two popes, without the Ladaria Error, theologically, sedevacantists no more have reason to remain in sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II ?

It's time for U.S sedevacantists to renounce sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II interpreted with the Ladaria Error

It is now over two years and the sedevacantists in the USA have not denied what I have written. They agree that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) refers to invisible people in 2015-2018.

Since Lumen Gentium 16(LG 16) refers to a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So Vatican Council II is not really a rupture with EENS.

Vatican Council II does not contradict the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation as Bishop Donald Sanborn told Dr. Robert Fastiggi in the debate on Ecclesiology which can be viewed on Youtube.

So Vatican Council II should no more be a reason for sedevacantism.The sedevacantists were wrong on Vatican Council II over the last 50 years.

It was only with the modernist New Theology(based on hypothetical cases being non hypothetical and examples of salvation outside the Church) that Vatican Council II could be interpreted as a rupture with Tradition.They had it completely wrong on the Council.They have not been able to deny this over the last two years.

SEDEVACANTISTS CAN INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT LADARIA ERROR

The sedevacantists CMRI,MHFM and others could announce that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the Ladaria Error. The Council is orthodox and compatible with Feeneyite EENS.

1.The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.They never were in 1949 or 1960-1965.

2.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc are not exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.Feeneyite EENS is compatible with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.

VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH FEENEYITE EENS

So Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite EENS. So the Council is no reason to remain in sedevacantism.

Even when the past popes made a mistake the sedevacantists can correct the error and affirm traditional Vatican Council II.

The CMRI could correct the error on its website. It confuses BOD, BOB and I.I as being known examples of salvation outside the Church. They are really hypothetical, speculative and physically non visible cases in 2018.

MYSTICI CORPORIS DOES NOT CONTRADICT FEENEYITE EEENS

Similarly Mystici Corporis, the Catechisms of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of Trent refer to invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I.So they never were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This is a common mistake on sedevacantist and traditionalist websites.

They have not denied this error over the last two years.They cannot blame Vatican Council II as being the cause of the break with the old exclusivist understanding of salvation.

But why has it taken them two years to correct themselves?

Why cannot they affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS ?

Can Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada who criticize Feeneyism admit that they made a mistake?

OFFICIAL HERESY

The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuit Rector of Boston College were teaching heresy with their invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions to the traditional understanding of EENS.It was Fr. Leonard Feeney who affirmed EENS like the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century, the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.-Lionel Andrades

http://voxcantor.blogspot.it/2018/03/the-ratzingoglio-reality.html