THE ARCHBISHOP OF MILAN AND THE SSPX WERE NOT THERE AT THE MILAN MEETING : VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL IS CONSERVATIVE
23.04.2025THE ARCHBISHOP OF MILAN AND THE SSPX WERE NOT THERE AT THE MILAN MEETING : VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL IS CONSERVATIVE
1. Pope Leo and the SSPX are in schism with the Magisterium of the 16th century on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with no exceptions. The Council of Florence 1442 also did not mention any exceptions for EENS.
2. Pope Leo and the SSPX are in schism with the times of Augustine and Aquinas, on the Creeds (Nicene, Athanasius and Apostles). They interpret LG 16 as being a physically visible case.
3. Pope Leo and the SSPX are in schism on the Catechisms. There is a rupture with Tradition. In the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 29Q is not an exception for 24Q and 27 Q for me as it is for them.
4. For Pope Leo and the SSPX ‘the passages in red’ contradict ‘the passages in blue’ but not for me. The passages in red (AG7, LG 14 etc) are hypothetical cases and not explicit examples of salvation outside the Church. So they do not contradict EENS and the blue orthodox passages in Vatican Council II.
I follow the Magisterium of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally, traditionally and honestly. So I am not in schism with the Magisterium over the centuries, the Church Fathers and the Apostles. Pope Leo and the SSPX interpret Magisterial Documents with the LG 16 visible premise creating schism with the past.
They must know that a bishop is not allowed to confuse what is implicit as being explicit and then claim Vatican Council II is liberal. This is being dishonest in public. The people do not know about this.
Cardinal Fernandez did just this in the schism-trial of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. The Lega did not protest.
In Ferrara-Commacchio, Italy, where the Mayor was from the Lega, traditionalist priests were transferred with the support of the bishops at the Rome Vicariate. The Lega did not protest. The priests were objecting to Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally by the bishop and were going back to Tradition, which is in harmony with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
How can the Archbishop of Milan interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally? With the rational interpretation of the Council, he has to be traditional.
Vatican Council II rational and traditional supports traditional faith and morals. So the Council interpreted rationally cannot be used to justify the LGBT agenda.
-Lionel Andrades
Rome.