There is still hope that the SSPX can turn things around without compromising on Vatican Council II ( interpreted with the irrrational premise and conclusion)

There is a factual error in Vatican Council II and the SSPX does not want to admit it and so say that they were  wrong all these years and the two popes do not want to admit it and say that the Council supports the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) .They both have their interests.
The St.Benedict Centers, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,  also  do not want to comment on this issue since they have made the same mistake as the SSPX on Vatican Council II.

This month Archbishop Forte quoted Pope Francis saying 'do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

The premises are there in Vatican  Council and the popes draw a conclusion which is a break with Tradition and so they welcome this interpretation of Vatican Council II.

I interpret Vatican Council II without the premise and so the conclusion is not a break with Tradition.The magisterium and the SSPX will not discuss this to protect their interests.

They want to interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise to reach an irrational conclusion and then the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II while the popes accept Vatican Council II.Both use the same irrational reasoning as the basis of their new theology

Once before when the Vatican was about to reach an agreement with the SSPX, without accepting Vatican Council II, the reconciliation was blocked since a lobby wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with the premise and the irrational conclusion. 

There is still hope that the SSPX can turn things around.

If the SSPX says that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENs and there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II and they would be willing to accept this interpretation of Vatican Council II, there will be a world wide political storm. 

There will be protests from the familiar quarters saying that this interpretation of Vatican Council II is unacceptable.They will insist that the SSPX accept Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.

For Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper interpreting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise,  would be unthinkable.

Really, it is because the SSPX bishops and priests are not thinking that they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to reach a false conclusion acceptable to the Left and the Vatican.

Why does Bishop Williamson not go ahead and interpret Vatican Council II without the  familiar premise? He does not have to please the different lobbies. Pope Francis has said that it is not possible to dialogue with Bishop Williamson. Does it mean that Bishop Fellay will be ready to accept Vatican Council II with the false premise ?. 

Only because Bishop Fellay is willing to dialogue that his branch of the SSPX are on the way to full communion and not BIshop Williamson and the SSPX Resistance ?

Even Bishop Williamson is a Catholic.

Or is Bishop Williamson not a Catholic for Pope Francis, since he denies the Holocaust figure while Bishop Fellay does not do this?

Either of the two, Bishops Fellay or Williamson,  have simply to say:-

1.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance in 2016.This is factual. There cannot be any such known case.

2.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases.So they are not objectively known exceptions to EENS, according to the 16th century missionaries.

3.Conclusion : So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. There is no known salvation outside the Church. So there is no new ecclesiology.

They should put these three points before the Vatican for a dialogue on Vatican Council II.

Pope Francis has said that 'the Second Vatican Council has its value.' 

He means Vatican Council II can only have a value  :-

1.There are known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance in 2016.

2.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases which are objectively known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus  according to the 16th century missionaries.

3.Conclusion : So Vatican Council II is a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. There is known salvation outside the Church. So there is a new ecclesiology.

.-Lionel Andrades

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/pope-francis-speaks-society-of-st-pius.html#more

May be someone who is in contact with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider could ask them these two questions and send me their response

Bishop Athansius Schneider recently called for a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II  and Cardinal Burke last Saturday  called for a new catechesis  when both of them do not see the factual mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, upon which so much of Vatican Council II is based.

Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity only because hypothetical  cases are considered explicit.Subjective cases are considered objective.

If they correct this error and re-read Vatican Council II the Council does not contradict the traditional teachings of the Church on other religions and Christian communities.Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider, like Pope Francis, have accepted that there is salvation outside the Church. Since for both of them being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to objective cases. They would have to be objective for them to be exceptions to EENs.This was the thinking of the cardinals who issued and approved the Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

They inferred that I.I and BOD were explicit.

They assumed hypothetical cases of the the BOD and I.I were explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite traditional interpretation of EENS. In other words they could physically meet or see persons  saved without the baptism of water and who did not need to formally convert into the Church. They could know someone on earth who would be saved without formally having to enter the Church.

This cannot be known to human beings!

It is with this error  that Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of discontinuity with Tradition.

 If Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider  avoid this error Vatican Council II is not a break with the past.

1.They both simply have to say that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance in 2016.This is factual. There cannot be any such known case.

2.They have to simply say that  LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II refers to hypothetical cases and not objectively known exceptions to EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.

This means there is no known salvation outside the Church, past or present.

May be someone who is in contact with them could ask them these two questions and send me the response of Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider. This is an important issue for the re-conciliation of the SSPX with the Vatican.Doctrinally the Vatican is in error but the SSPX bishops and priests, are not aware of it.They all see the vague result of Vatican Council II being a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors but are unaware that this rupture is caused by assuming hypothetical cases are objective known.If this error is avoided Vatican Council II would be traditional.-Lionel Andrades


Video :Marcia per la Vita - Roma 8 maggio 2016
https://youtu.be/Xz6ksYz1KZE
 

Pope Francis' exhortation Amoris Laeitia is based upon this irrationality and innovation in Catholic morals : Fr.Thomas Rosica, says we may not judge individuals

"May our way of communicating help to overcome the mind-set that neatly separates sinners from the righteous," he said. "We can and we must judge situations of sin – such as violence, corruption and exploitation – but we may not judge individuals, since only God can see into the depths of their hearts." -Fr.Thomas Rosica

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/pope-gets-media-s-attention-as-he-rebrands-church-papacy-says-priest.cfm

Lionel:

but we may not judge individuals, since only God can see into the depths of their hearts

This is contrary to Pope John PaulI's moral encyclical Veritatis Splendor which says we can judge a mortal sin and the outward action indicates the subjective state.

It also states that some sins are intrinsically evil.

Veritatsi Spendor is critical of the Fundamental Option Theory of Fr. Bernard Haring and Fr.Charles Curran which states that even though a person may be in objective mortal sin, we cannot judge him, since subjectively he may be choosing an option for the good.In other words Harding and Curran could judge these hypothetical cases. Then based upon this theoretical case, they created a new rule in mortal theology which said others could not judge .They also did away with the traditional concept of mortal sin.

This is the moral theology, with numerous 'permutations, probailities and possibilities',  which is taught at pontifical universities.Pope Francis' exhortation Amoris Laeitia is based upon this irrationality and innovation in Catholic morals.

-Lionel Andrades