The popes did not tell the traditionalists that Vatican Council II was Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when it is interpreted with the Rational Premise.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not informed. There is no denial from Andrea Torneilli or Fr.Antonio Spadaro sj.
No one told Lefebvre that if he interpreted Lumen Gentium (8, 14 and 16) as being only hypothetical in the present times, there would be the hermeneutic of continuity with the past Magisterium.
They could not tell him to interpret the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) rationally. This would put an end to the New Theology. The liberalism which divides the Church comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO).
How can Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, be Magisterial when they interpret Vatican Council II with a False Premise?.Only the Rational Premise comes from the Holy Spirit.
Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode wants the Church to interpret Vatican Council II with the wrong premise. How can bishops in conscience go along with it?
Without the false premise the present two popes would emerge conservative. They would be supporting extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation and the non separation of the Catholic Church and the Catholic State. This comes with the old theology.
The pope is in schism when he uses the common False Premise to re-interpret Vatican Council II (LG 14 etc).This happens with the False Premise irrespective of who uses it.
Pope Francis does not interpret Lumen Gentium 14 (baptism of desire) like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall. His interpretation of Vatican Council II is different from that of Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson.
How can Cardinal Luiz Ladaria be inspired by the Holy Spirit when he interprets Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a False and not Rational Premise?-Lionel Andrades