Wednesday, March 14, 2018

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








We simply need a prelate, religious congregation or lay movement to announce that they choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise: we need a cardinal to announcement what the CDF does not





Related image
Comments on the blog Vox Cantoris

Jay Jay said...

The heart of the matter is, Ratzinger, Burke, and the other well-meaning prelates, are all still modernists.



Lionel: They do not know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II.One with the irrational premise which they use and the other without it.








_____________________




There is no reforming the reform. The reform was a disaster and needs to be circular filed, lock, stock and barrel.

Lionel: We have a new ecclesiology, new theology, new ecumenism and new evangelisation at Mass based on invisible for us baptism of desire being a visible exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So in the past the ecclesiology at the Traditional Latin Mass was Feeneyite and now it is not.

Now it is assumed that invisible people saved with the baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to the old exclusivist ecclesiology, the old ecumenism of return and the old Mission which assumed all non Catholics are oriented to Hell with no known exceptions.

Now unknown and physically invisible people are alleged exceptions.

_____________________________










Until a prelate steps forth with a complete and utter condemnation of Vat 2 and all its works and all its pomp’s and, may I add, all its “saints”, we will find ourselves tomorrow in the same never-never-land we find ourselves today.



Lionel: We simply need a prelate or religious congregation or lay movement to announce that they choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.

Vatican Council II without the false premise does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors. So there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.Someone important has to say this. 





This will bring the Church back on its old theological rails and there will not be a hermeneutic of rupture created with the false premise, what I call Cushingism, as opposed to Feeneyism.


We need a cardinal to make this announcement which is not coming forth from the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.-Lionel Andrades


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









MARCH 13, 2018







SSPX re-open negotiations with Ecclesia Dei ask for the right to accept and re-interpret Vatican Council II without the official mistake, the Ladaria Error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/sspx-reopen-negotiations-with-ecclesia.html










CMRI website says Vatican Council II contradicts Syllabus of Errors. This is false.


photo of Bishop Mark Pivarunas

See.The website of the sedevacantist religious congregation,Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculate(CMRI) says Vatican Council II contradicts the Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura etc.This is false. I repeat - this is false. 1
Only Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 8, LG 16, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to visible and known people saved outside the Church, contradicts the Syllabus of Errors.
Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 8, LG 16 etc as referring to invisible and unknown people in 2018, or the past, saved outside the Church does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There is no rupture with Tradition.
So it is the CMRI which has made the mistake with the wrong interpretation. The fault does not lie with Vatican Council II.
Similarly on their website the baptism of desire(BOD) is an exception to Feeneyite EENS. 2
Again they mean BOD which is visible in personal cases and excludes the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, which is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
BOD which is hypothetical, speculative, a concept only , cannot be a concrete example of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2018. So it does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
So the CMRI does not affirm Feeneyite EENS because of known cases of BOD etc and they interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS because of known cases of LG 8 etc, known people saved outside the Church for CMRI.
I have a rational choice and take it.Where are the practical examples of people saved with BOD, BOB and I.I or LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc in real life for CMRI? There are none.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
Theological Position: Sede Vacante
The Roman Catholic priests of the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen profess and adhere to the Catholic Faith as it has been consistently Pope Pius XII
taught throughout the centuries since the time of Christ. With the death of Pope Pius XII and with the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented situation has befallen the Church, which threatens her very doctrines and worship. In order to provide for the preservation of the Catholic Faith and the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Sacraments, the following statement has been drawn up for the purpose of clearly defining the actual position that these priests have taken.

I. VATICAN COUNCIL II: Convoked by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church, this council (held from 1962-65) decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecumenism. These were previously condemned by:
   Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)

   Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
   Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
   Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos (1928)
   Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)

THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals.
http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml
2.
http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml



The sedevacantists MHFM interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality and then reject the Council.This is heretical. They make the same theological error as the Vatican Curia.

from the website of the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (Peter and Michael Dimond)

This website is dedicated to defending and spreading the Catholic Faith, as taught and defined by the authoritative teachings of the popes throughout history.
Lionel: Peter and Michael Dimond interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition since they assume hypothetical cases mentioned in the Council-text are not hypothetical This is the error of the New Theology, which is common in the Catholic Church.
If they would not mistake hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being known people saved outside the Church, then Vatican Council II would not contradict the past exclusivist understanding of salvation.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I do not refer to known people saved outside the Church in 2018. So there are no practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II. Peter and Michael Dimond could also interpret Vatican Council II as I do and not like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria at the Press Conference on Placuit Deo ( March 1,2018).He assumed that Lumen Gentium 8 refers to  exceptions to the Church's traditional teaching on exclusive salvation.We do not know of any one saved with elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) outside the Church.Neither do we know of any one saved outside the Church since the true Church subsists outside its visible boundaries. So there are no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in LG 8. This was the Ladaria Error.
_______________________________
 It is also dedicated to exposing in great detail the post-Vatican II pseudo-“Church” and the New Mass. These purport to be Catholic, but are not.
This glossary contains important definitions of key terms and principles about the Catholic Faith, about the post-Vatican II “Church,” about how the Catholic Church views non-Catholic religions, etc. which people should see.
The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ upon St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-20; Jn. 21:15-17). This is proven by history, Scripture and tradition. But the post-Vatican II “Church” is actually a counterfeit “Catholic” sect with new teachings, new practices and a New Mass – which all contradict the Catholic Faith of all times and the teaching of the Catholic popes in history.
Lionel: Yes they contradict the Catholic Faith and they do it by assuming hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire,baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are non hypothetical. It is inferred that these are personally known and physically visible people saved outside the Church.Then with this false premise they contradict Feeneyite EENS. So there is a new ecumenism, new ecclesiology etc.
___________________________
 Vatican II was a council which took place from 1962-1965; this council started a revolution against the Catholic Faith and gave birth to this new counterfeit “Catholic” sect. 
Lionel: The Council was interpreted with an irrational premise and the conclusion was non traditional and heretical. The same irrational premise is used by Peter and Michael Dimond.
They have a choice. They can interpret the Council without irrationally assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are visible. Then Vatican Council would be traditional. This is how I interpret the Council.



__________________________
This website proves in tremendous detail that this post-Vatican II sect is not Catholic, that its leaders are not Catholic, that its fruits and teachings are not Catholic and not holy, and that this counterfeit sect was predicted in Sacred Scripture and in Catholic prophecy to arise in the last days as part of the Devil’s final assault on mankind...
Lionel: The MHFM website interprets Vatican Council II with an irrationality and then rejects the Council.This is heretical. They make the same theological error as the Vatican Curia.-Lionel Andrades
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/about-website/#.WqkqMB3OXIV

SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

Are you referring to BOD(baptism of desire) visible to us or BOD invisible for us ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/are-you-referring-to-bodbaptism-of.html


NOVEMBER 15, 2017

The St.Benedict Center and Most Holy Family Monastery's position is that Church membership is objectively necessary for salvation : we three agree here http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/the-stbenedict-center-and-most-holy.html

Without the irrational interpretation of BOD,BOB and I.I by the sedevacantists CMRI, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors,Mystici Corporis etc are not contradicted by Vatican Council II : the fault lies with the sedevacantists and not Vatican Council II

from the sedevacantist CMRI webiste

Theological Position: Sede Vacante

The Roman Catholic priests of the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen profess and adhere to the Catholic Faith as it has been consistently 
Pope Pius XII
taught throughout the centuries since the time of Christ.
Lionel : This is not true. The CMRI interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as referring to known  people saved outside the Church.So it is a practical exception to EENS.
There are no such known cases in 2018.
So with hypothetical BOD,BOB and I.I there can be  no exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This is a mistake of the CMRI, the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II.
The CMRI can change to hypothetical instead of non hypothetical BOD, BOB and I.I.Then the conclusion of Vatican Council II is different.
__________________



 With the death of Pope Pius XII and with the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented situation has befallen the Church, which threatens her very doctrines and worship. In order to provide for the preservation of the Catholic Faith and the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Sacraments, the following statement has been drawn up for the purpose of clearly defining the actual position that these priests have taken.

I. VATICAN COUNCIL II: Convoked by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church, this council (held from 1962-65) decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecumenism. These were previously condemned by:
   Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)
   Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
   Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
   Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos (1928)
   Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)
Lionel: Without the irrational interpretation of BOD,BOB and I.I by the CMRI community none of these documents would be contradicted by Vatican Council II.
______________________

THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals.
Lionel: There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II and the CMRI has chosen the irrational one.
_________________________
II. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments. The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant theologians. To use the words of a well-known Cardinal, Alfredo Ottaviani, in 1969: “(The Novus Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.”
Lionel: Cardinal Ottaviani had used the irrational interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I to reject Feeneyite EENS.So the ecclesiology of the Mass had changed. This was not due to the liturgy but a change in theology which changed doctrine and rejected the dogma EENS.At Mass there was no more the old exclusivist understanding of salvation.
I attend the Novus Ordo Mass.For me there is no change in the ecclesiiology of the Church.It is disappointing for me when the priests at the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass do not affirm Feeneyite EENS.
Even the CMRI like the SSPX and FSSP do not not affirm Feeneyite EENS. So doctrine stands changed.
____________________________
 The results of this modernization were a new definition of the Mass (reflecting Luther’s concept of the Last Supper), the alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations). This new mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae, contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the Catholic Church, such as:
   Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum and De Defectibus,
   the Council of Trent’s decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Session XXII),
   Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (1896),
   Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei (1947),
   Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis (1948).
Lionel: For me the Novus Ordo Mass does not contradict any of these documents.
_________________________________

THEREFORE, the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration, is an invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to one’s faith. For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin.
III. NEW RITES OF THE SACRAMENTS: That which has been said of the Novus Ordo Missae can, in the same respect, be said of the new Vatican II rites for the seven sacraments. To the degree that the matter, form and intention of each of the sacraments has been substantially altered, to that degree their validity must be questioned. The Catholic Church has, most certainly, always taught what the proper matter, form and intention are in the confecting of the sacraments.
THEREFORE, where the new rites have been employed, traditional priests should administer the Sacraments sub conditione as the situation may demand.
IV. MODERN VATICAN II CHURCH: The Catholic Church is identified as the true Church of Christ by her four marks (Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity).
Lionel: The CMRI community with physically visible BOD, BOB and I.I, has changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed, re-interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS, accepted EENS with visible instead of invisible BOD,BOB and I.I etc.This is all heresy. It is an impediment to offering Mass.These are mortal sins of faith.
________________________________
 Since the heretical teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the new rites of the sacraments have manifestly been a departure from the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings, it must be concluded that this modern so-called “Catholic” Church no longer possesses the first two marks of the true Church — namely, Unity and Holiness. Its obvious departure over the past twenty-five years from what the Catholic Church has always held can lead to only one conclusion: a new ecumenical Church has been established which stands in contradiction to the true Catholic Church.
Lionel. The new ecumenism, like the new theology and new evangelisation, has its foundation on there being known salvation outside the Church.For the CMRI there is known salvation outside the Church. BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the old exclusivist ecclesiiology of the Church. So the CMRI theological position is the same as the liberals and the Vatican Curia. This is modernism.
For me there is only the old ecumenism of return since there is no known salvation outside the Church.Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.They are not a rupture with Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors, Mystici Corporis etc.
_________________________________
V. MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II CHURCH: In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority.
Lionel: They are interpreting magisterial documents with visible BOD, BOB and I.I just like the CMRI. So Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with Tradition. The fault lies with the false premise ( visible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I) and not Vatican Council II.I interpret Vatican Council II differently.
_________________________________
 This most certainly includes the one who confirmed, approved, decreed, and implemented these heretical teachings, namely Paul VI (Montini). Likewise included are his successors, namely, John Paul II (Wojtyla), Benedict XVI (Ratzinger), and Francis (Bergoglio), who have continued to implement these heretical teachings.
Lionel: The heretical teachings emerge when BOD,BOB and I.I are considered to be known people saved outside the Church. This was the mistake of the popes and also of Bishop Pirvanus and the CMRI community.
__________________________________

 Despite the lack of canonical warning and formal declaration of loss of office, their repeated acts of ecumenism and their enforcement of the heresies of Vatican II and the new code of Canon Law, which are injurious to faith and morals, are manifestations of their pertinacity in heresy.
Lionel: They support these actions with the New Theology. According to the New Theology there are exceptions to the dogma EENS, so Feeneyite EENS is rejected.Since there is salvation outside the Church, for the hierarchy and the CMRI, there is the new ecumenism, the Anonymous Christian etc.The Vatican accepts it and the CMRI reject it both use the same New Theology.
___________________________________
THEREFORE, as the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches: “‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these words are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord.” Further, since John Paul II has manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecumenism and fostered interfaith worship, he clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy.
Lionel: John Paul II like the CMRI did not correct the BOD, BOB and I.I mistake in the Catholic Church. I avoid the error and so for me Vatican Council II has no exceptions to EENS.
I also affirm EENS without the irrationality. 
I also affirm the Nicene Creed without the irrationality.
I affirm Mystici Corporis,the Catechism of Pius X and the Catechism of Trent without the irrationality. 
The CMRI cannot say the same.
_______________________
VI. THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW: In order to implement the teachings of Vatican II, it was necessary that the modernists change the Code of Canon Law (1917), as it contradicted their designs by reflecting the mind of the Church in her past doctrine and discipline. The new code contains a matter which should be most disturbing to the informed Catholic. According to the new law of the Modern Church, non-Catholics can, under certain circumstances, petition the “sacraments” from a Catholic priest (without the non-Catholic abjuring his heretical beliefs), and the priests must administer them. The Council of Florence, as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), strictly forbids this.
THEREFORE, as the universal laws of the Church are protected by her infallibility and cannot impose obligations opposed to faith and morals, the New Code must be considered as lacking all force of law. Moreover, it has been promulgated by those who no longer represent Catholic authority.
Lionel: The New Code of Canon Law sadly accomodates invisible baptism of desire as being a visible exception to EENS.This error was implemented by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
__________________________
VII. COURSE FOR TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRIESTS: Due to the unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church and the moral responsibility of the faithful to receive certainly valid sacraments, traditional priests most certainly can and must continue the mission of the Catholic Church by sanctifying the faithful through the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the administration of the Sacraments, and other pastoral works. The mind of the Church is that “the salvation of the people is the supreme law.” The 1917 Code of Canon Law will continue to be the priests’ guideline.
Lionel : The 1917 Code of Canon Law I would assume supports Feeneyite EENS and does not assume there is known salvation outside the Church.The New Code of Canon Law assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Holy Office 1949 was correct.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml








 MARCH 14, 2018


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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/its-time-for-us-sedevacantists-to.html

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


MARCH 13, 2018



Some two years have passed and sedevacantists will not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for them since it refers to visible and known people

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/some-three-years-have-passed-and.html


MARCH 13, 2018





Sedevacantists do not have a single source to support their modernism, not a single reference. They continue with thier liberalism

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/sedevacantists-do-not-have-single.html



MARCH 13, 2018


No comment from Bishop Donald Sanborn over some two years : questions still not being answered . It is with heresy that they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. They interpret Vatican Council II in schism with the past popes
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/no-comment-from-bishop-donald-sanborn.html


MARCH 13, 2018

Repost : Holy Trinity Seminary does not clarify if they refer to Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 is visible or invisible
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/repost-holy-trinity-seminary-does-not.html


MARCH 13, 2018

Repost : Sedevacantist article on ecclesiology has the same connfusion as the Pontifical universities and seminaries which they call 'modernist'.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/repost-sedevacantist-article-on.html


MARCH 11, 2018

Image result for Photos Bishop Pivarunas CMRI

Repost : Sedevacantists will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to physically visible or invisible people in 2017 :LG 16 invisible indicates that they were wrong on Vatican Council II all these years
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/repost-sedevacantists-will-still-not.html

 MARCH 10, 2018

Image result for Press Conference on Thursday Placuit Deo Photo

Repost : Schismatic Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j does not have the faith: We need to ask the CDF and the Conferences of Catholic Bishops to interpret magisterial documents rationally.Then there is no schism with the past popes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/repost-schismatic-cardinal-luiz-ladaria.html