Sedevacantists misinterpret Vatican Council II:with the same error as the liberal cardinals

Sedevacantists misinterpret Vatican Council II:with the same error as the liberal cardinals

With regard to the theoretical concept of the Vatican II sect’s ‘cardinals’ electing someone, of course anyone they would elect would be an invalid antipope; for all of the ‘cardinals’ are manifest heretics. The fact that some of them are valid priests is irrelevant. Every single one of them holds that Protestants are part of the Church (taught in Vatican II); that the ‘Orthodox’ are part of the Church (taught in Vatican II); that non-Catholics may receive Communion (taught in Vatican II); that there is salvation outside the Church (taught in Vatican II/the New Catechism); that participation in non-Catholic worship is good (taught in Vatican II and by the antipopes); that non-Christian religions are worthy of esteem (taught in Vatican II); that religious liberty should be a civil right (taught in Vatican II); etc. ad nauseam. -Most Holy Family Monastery. E-Exchanges http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php

Every single one of them holds that Protestants are part of the Church (taught in Vatican II);
(Vatican Council II does not state that Protestants in general are part of the Catholic Church. It only mentions that a Protestant could be saved. This is a big difference. A Protestant could be in imperfect communion with the Church (UR) and these cases are not visible to us. We do not know if such a case exists in 2013. If it said that Protestants are saved in general it would contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic Faith. Protestants do not have Catholic Faith.So the fault is with the MHFM liberal interpretation).

that the ‘Orthodox’ are part of the Church (taught in Vatican II);
(Same as above).

that non-Catholics may receive Communion (taught in Vatican II);
(Non Catholics in general cannot receive the Eucharist however in an emergency a non Catholic could be given the Eucharist depending upon the circumstances and the decision of the Pastor.)


that there is salvation outside the Church (taught in Vatican II/the New Catechism);
(Vatican Council II in Ad Gentes 7 says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. This is the traditional teaching on salvation according to the dogma defined three times.The Council does not mention any exceptions, since LG 16 etc are not visible to us.
Since the MHFM assumes that these cases are visible to us it interprets Vatican Council II as saying there is salvation outside the Church.The error is with the MHFM and not Vatican Council II).

that participation in non-Catholic worship is good (taught in Vatican II and by the antipopes);
(?)

that non-Christian religions are worthy of esteem (taught in Vatican II);
(Non Catholic religions have 'good and holy' things (NA). Vatican Council II however does not say that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation.Nostra Aetate does not mention this).

that religious liberty should be a civil right (taught in Vatican II);...
(Religious liberty is a civil right according to secular Constituions. Vatican Council II (DH) does not say that Catholics do not have the freedom to profess their Faith including the teaching outside the church there is no salvation.They can still say that non Catholic religions are false paths to salvation with false worship based on AG 7 and LG 14.DH recognizes a secular reality only.)

The MHFM though are correct regarding the interpretation of the cardinals.This is the widely held liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II. However there is an alternative. The MHFM could use the alternative interpretation of the Council even though the cardinals are in error.

Secondly the MHFM is making the same error of the cardinals without realizing it.The error of the cardinals arises from them assuming that LG 16,LG 8 etc are visible to us and not invisible. Based on this false observation,of being able to physically see the dead now saved, they have built up their theology and also interpretation of Vatican Council II.

If the MHFM assumes that invincible ignorance (LG 16) is invisible then LG 16 does not contradict AG 7. There are no exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation. Ad Gentes 7 interestingly is mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the sub-title Outside the Church No Salvation.

The MHFM are making the same error as the cardinals in the interpretation of Vatican Council which must emerge as a break with Tradition with the false premise of being able to see the dead. So the fault is not with the Council but with the interpretation of the cardinals and the MHFM.
-Lionel Andrades

Here's one example: An infant who is baptized in a Lutheran Church who, a week later, dies in a car crash. Does that baby go to Heaven? Yes, absolutely. Was that baby ever a member of the visible Catholic Church? No, at least not canonically, which is why the infant, while now in Paradise, is not entitled to a Mass of Christian Burial.