When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
When the sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake since theoretical and hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II cannot be explicit exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) there is a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council.It is a different Vatican Council II then the one they knew over the last 50 years.
Vatican Council II becomes traditional on Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology. There would be no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.
Then the popes since John XXIII would not be in heresy.
Catholics could then interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.Pope John XXIII would not be in heresy since Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is not heretical.
The problem with Vatican Council II for the sedes and trads really began with their error in 1949. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not notice the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It brought a new way of thinking into the Church.
This new way wrongly accepted hypothetical cases as being concrete exceptions to the dogma EENS. This was the irrational thinking at Vatican Council II. This was the irrational philosphy of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits. It was not opposed by Rahner and Ratzinger.
However because of the peculiar nature of this situation it is still possible to re-interpret the hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical and then there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II.The interpretation changes.
So when there is no change in ecclesiology, since there is no known salvation outside the Church, there are no practical cases, which would contradict Feeneyite EENS, Vatican Council II is traditional. The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.
So if Bishop Donald Sanborn accepts that a mistake was made during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII; the pope overlooked the error in the Letter of the Holy Office, then Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were not in heresy. This contradicts the position he held in the debate with the professor of theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Robert Fastiggi.
So there would be a continuity in the ecclesiology of the Church over the centuries. The Council would not be a rupture with Tradition.
So Bishop Sanborn could contact the Chancery and report to the local bishop, since his challenge during the debate with Fastiggi has been met and he has lost.
He wagered that if any one could show him how Vatican Council II was not heretical and rupture with the past he would leave his sedevacantism.
He has now before him a Vatican Council II which can be interpreted without an irrational premise.So it has a continuity with the popes of the past.
-Lionel Andrades
June 26, 2017
Sedes and trads have chosen the interpretation of the Masons and liberals : they deny Jesus as He was known before Pius XII
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/sedes-and-trads…
Vatican Council II becomes traditional on Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology. There would be no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.
Then the popes since John XXIII would not be in heresy.
Catholics could then interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.Pope John XXIII would not be in heresy since Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is not heretical.
The problem with Vatican Council II for the sedes and trads really began with their error in 1949. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not notice the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It brought a new way of thinking into the Church.
This new way wrongly accepted hypothetical cases as being concrete exceptions to the dogma EENS. This was the irrational thinking at Vatican Council II. This was the irrational philosphy of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits. It was not opposed by Rahner and Ratzinger.
However because of the peculiar nature of this situation it is still possible to re-interpret the hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical and then there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II.The interpretation changes.
So when there is no change in ecclesiology, since there is no known salvation outside the Church, there are no practical cases, which would contradict Feeneyite EENS, Vatican Council II is traditional. The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.
So if Bishop Donald Sanborn accepts that a mistake was made during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII; the pope overlooked the error in the Letter of the Holy Office, then Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were not in heresy. This contradicts the position he held in the debate with the professor of theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Robert Fastiggi.
So there would be a continuity in the ecclesiology of the Church over the centuries. The Council would not be a rupture with Tradition.
So Bishop Sanborn could contact the Chancery and report to the local bishop, since his challenge during the debate with Fastiggi has been met and he has lost.
He wagered that if any one could show him how Vatican Council II was not heretical and rupture with the past he would leave his sedevacantism.
He has now before him a Vatican Council II which can be interpreted without an irrational premise.So it has a continuity with the popes of the past.
-Lionel Andrades
June 26, 2017
Sedes and trads have chosen the interpretation of the Masons and liberals : they deny Jesus as He was known before Pius XII
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/sedes-and-trads…