HILDEBRAND, LEFEBVRE, MATTEI, GRUNER, FERRARA AND MARSHALL USED THE FALSE PREMISE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IN IGNORANCE.
HILDEBRAND, LEFEBVRE, MATTEI, GRUNER, FERRARA AND MARSHALL USED THE FALSE PREMISE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IN IGNORANCE.
Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrand, Paolo Pascualucci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Christopher Ferrara, Mons. Ignacio Barreiro and others were all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So this line of traditionalist writers had it wrong on the Council. Their premise was wrong and so their conclusion was wrong.
Roberto dei Mattei will not announce that he made a mistake on Vatican Council II all these years
Taylor Marshall interprets St. Thomas Aquinas with Cushingism and not Feeneyism and so there is a rupture with Tradition for him.
Michael Davies, Atila Sinke Guimares, John Vennari interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise. So there was an artificial rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
The SSPX bishops too made their original mistake on the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and then superficially read Vatican Council II. Their apostolate is based on Cushingism.
We now know. So we have Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II (Cushingite). Davies was a Cushingite. On this point he was a liberal like Cardinal Ratzinger.
Michael Davies did not know that the theology and ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo Mass is the same as that of the Tridentine Rite Mass. He thought that the ecclesiology had changed (and it had with the premise) but did not know the precise source for this change.
He was aware of 'the bad fruits of Vatican Council II' (interpreted with the premise) which were there for all to see.
But like Bishop Bernard Fellay today, he would only criticize Vatican Council II for its conclusions, not knowing the specific cause of the conclusion.
What was the missing link? What did they miss out on?
The error was simply assuming invisible cases were physically visible in the present times. It was an objective error.
They assumed they had found a rupture with 'the ecclesiocentrism of the past'.
So for example, Nostra Aetate says a Muslim can be saved. Why? Since there were known cases for the cardinals. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, hypothetical cases, were assumed to be known .They concluded at that time that there was known salvation outside the Church without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So since there was known salvation outside the Church, Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II could say that a Muslim and a Jew was saved, there was salvation for them in their religion. The Church was no more Feeneyite. Cushing had this approved in 1949.
While the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X says everyone needs to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation the Letter to the Holy Office 1949 denied it. Michael Davies did not complain.
On the SSPX website Fr. Peter Scott, former Superior of the SSPX in the USA was telling SSPX members at their chapels to not associate with the 'Feeneyites'. The message was placed on line. He was a Cushingite.
The 1949 Letter was saying invisible cases are objective exceptions to EENS and Bishop Williamson, Fr.Scott and Michael Davies did not notice it.
This was also the reasoning at Vatican Council II and Michael Davies was not aware of it. He died without knowing that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without this faulty reasoning, violating the Principle of Non Contradiction. He did not know that without this premise on invisible cases being visible the conclusion would be different. There would be no change in ecclesiology. This would be a major change. Since with the premise the Church as at that time in uncharted theological waters.
If they were aware of the false premise there would be no need for Archbishop Lefebvre to object to Vatican Council II. However if this was known, the magisterium kept it a secret. Rahner, Kung and Ratzinger used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and when Lefebvre did not accept the premise and conclusion he was excommunicated. It was similar to Fr. Leonard Feeney who did not accept the baptism of desire etc as being an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He was excommunicated. Then the excommunication was lifted without him having to recant and luckily before he died. Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated by those who used an irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II, which was heresy in itself.
Archbishop Lefebvre and Michael Davies did not know that there would be no change in ecclesiology at Holy Mass. No one told them that all they had to do was to avoid that small
premise.
It can still be avoided today but traditionalists are following the error of Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Archbishop Lefebvre and others
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way.
This group of traditionalists instead of correcting the factual error of 1949 consolidated it and did not expose it.
They accepted the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and then applied it to Vatican Council II. They did not like the conclusion which obviously was heretical. So they rejected the Council. They were not aware of the false premise, which is the basis of Cushingism. Neither could they distinguish between Vatican Council with and without the premise, Vatican Council II Cushingite or Feeneyite.
The popes from Paul VI to Francis and the present ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made the same mistake. They used the same false premise to interpret the Council.
For them the red is an exception to the blue.1
I do not make the same mistake since I am aware of the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism. The Council is traditional for me. - Lionel Andrades