CARDINAL FERNANDEZ IS STILL NOT INFORMING THE SSPX : WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL THE COUNCIL IS TRADITIONAL AND NOT LIBERAL
04.03.2026CARDINAL FERNANDEZ IS STILL NOT INFORMING THE SSPX : WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL THE COUNCIL IS TRADITIONAL AND NOT LIBERAL
It means the Latin Mass cannot be phased out in the name of Vatican Council II irrational. The Council has to be rational and then it is in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal. The priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must be able to affirm the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed. Otherwise canonically they cannot be priests.
At the February 12 meeting Cardinal Fernandez did not inform Fr. Davide Pagliarani that he could interpret Vatican Council II rationally with LG 8, 14, 16 etc referring to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2025.
In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre rejected Vatican Council II irrational and consecrated four bishops. The Vatican excommunicated them. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not tell them that Vatican Council II could be interpreted rationally and the conclusion would be traditional and not liberal.
Fr. Jean Marie Gleize an SSPX professor of ecclesiology recently gave a talk in French. He is a Cushingite and not Feeneyite on the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. The same as Fr. Francois Laisney and Fr. Franz Schmidberger. He interprets invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible cases. So for him the dogma EENS has visible exceptions. For me it does not have visible exceptions.
At the February 12 meeting Cardinal Fernandez did not inform Fr. Davide Pagliarani that he could interpret Vatican Council II rationally with LG 8, 14, 16 etc referring to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2025.
In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre rejected Vatican Council II irrational and consecrated four bishops. The Vatican excommunicated them. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not tell them that Vatican Council II could be interpreted rationally and the conclusion would be traditional and not liberal.
When Summorum Pontificum was issued in 2007 Pope Benedict did not tell the SSPX that they could interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and so the Council will be traditional and in harmony with the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the Latin Mass. He kept this a secret.
The Holy See’s Dicastery for Communications will not respond to reports on social media which say that Vatican Council II interpreted rationally with the Rational Premise would support the SSPX and the Ecclesia Dei communities. The Council would be aligned with the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal and not Pope Leo.
Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX interprets Vatican Council II with the Rahner LG 16 visible mistake in his book ‘Is Feeneyism Catholic? He really criticizes the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal. He supports the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, which, like Karl Rahner projects invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. Laisney then like Fr. Schmidberger, interprets Vatican Council II, by confusing LG 14 (baptism of desire) etc as being an exception for Tradition. So his book does not have the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. It is schismatic.It is Cushingite.
A Cushingite is someone who interprets invisible cases as being visible. A Feeneyite is someone who interprets invisible cases as being just being invisible).
So LG 16 is visible for a Cushingite and for a Feeneyite it is invisible.
For a Cushingite LG 16 is an explicit example of salvation outside the Church and so an objective exception for the dogma EENS etc.
For a Feeneyite LG 16 is invisible and so cannot be an exception for the dogma EENS etc).For a Feeneyite the hypothetical passages in red (see graphics) are not objective exceptions for the blue orthodox passages. For a Cushingite the passages in red contradict the passages in blue but for a Feeneyite they are not exceptions for the passages in blue which are in harmony with the dogma EENS etc.
Fr. Jean Marie Gleize an SSPX professor of ecclesiology recently gave a talk in French. He is a Cushingite and not Feeneyite on the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. The same as Fr. Francois Laisney and Fr. Franz Schmidberger. He interprets invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible cases. So for him the dogma EENS has visible exceptions. For me it does not have visible exceptions.
I accept the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as hypothetical cases. I do not reject them. They can only be hypothetical and invisible cases. This is a reality. They can only be known to God in personal cases. So I do not project the baptism of desire etc as being an exception for EENS.
Like Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Fr. Anthony Cekada and John Vennari, did not know about the Rational Premise and so they could not correct Cardinal Ratzinger.
But with LG 16 being invisible and so not an exception for the dogma EENS, then Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric with AG 7 which is aligned with EENS. LG 16 being implicit and subjective is not an explicit example of salvation outside the Catholic Church and a visible exception for EENS. So it is Larry Chapp and Cardinal Fernandez who are in schism for not being able to affirm the Athanasius Creed etc, with no known exceptions known in real life and none mentioned in Vatican Council II. It is the SSPX which must start producing literature which show that Larry Chapp is in schism with the magisterium of the 16th century for example, on EENS. He is also interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. He is in first class heresy when he projects the Athanasius Creed as having exceptions. The SSPX must claim that they are orthodox and rational and show doctrinally how Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals are in schism with the LG 16 false premise.
It means the Latin Mass cannot be phased out in the name of Vatican Council II irrational. The Council has to be rational and then it is in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal. The priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must be able to affirm the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed. Otherwise canonically they cannot be priests. Vatican Council II no more has the hermeneutic of rupture with the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal. So the lex orandi in the Catholic Church has not changed after Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
04.03.2026
WITH LG 16 INVISIBLE THE SSPX CAN CLAIM THAT RAHNER, RATZINGER AND CHAPP ARE IN SCHISM : WITH LG 16 VISIBLE FERNANDEZ CAN ACCUSE THE SSPX OF BEING IN SCHISM WITH LG 16 INVISIBLE THE SSPX CAN CLAIM THAT …