COULD THE SSPX GET A COURT ORDER TO STOP THE EXCOMMUNICATION ? : FERNANDEZ INTERPRETS VC 2 …

COULD THE SSPX GET A COURT ORDER TO STOP THE EXCOMMUNICATION ? : FERNANDEZ INTERPRETS VC 2 IRRATIONALLY.COERCES OTHERS TO DO THE SAME

29.04.2026
COULD THE SSPX GET A COURT ORDER TO STOP THE EXCOMMUNICATION ? : FERNANDEZ INTERPRETS VC 2 IRRATIONALLY.COERCES OTHERS TO DO THE SAME

Cardinal Fernandez confuses implicit cases of LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA2 , GS 22 etc as being explicit exceptions for the dogma EENS etc. This is irrational. He wants the SSPX to follow this irrational interpretation of the Council to avoid excommunication. This is coercion and deception. This is also a secular issue.

Could the SSPX get a court order to stop the excommunication citing the dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
Similarly Bishop Peter Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire, in the diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA were dishonest on Vatican Council II, interpreting what was implicit as being explicit, with the approval of the DDF (CDF).This was when a case was filed by Laire against Michael Voris of Church Militant TV. A Decree of Prohibitions was issued against the religious community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire.

But Vatican Council II rational is aligned with the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei communities and not Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez. It is only because they all interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, that the SSPX can be accused of being in schism with Vatican Council II irrational and dishonest. If the SSPX interpreted Vatican Council II rationally, then it is Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez who will be schism. They will be in schism for not affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed etc, which no more has explicit exceptions in Vatican Council II, to make them obsolete.
Tradition is not obsolete with Vatican Council II rational i.e. AG 7 is aligned with the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed and LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not objective exceptions for AG 7 or EENS.
So Archbishop Vigano could accuse Cardinal Fernandez of being in schism since the latter interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally and so schismatically.
The St. Benedict Center in NH could demand that a Decree of Prohibitions be issued against Cardinal Fernandez since the Council can only be interpreted rationally, this is the only moral option Fernandez has and the conclusion will be in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.

All the traditionalists have to do now is announce that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical and invisible cases always. But, instead Bishop Bernard Fellay prepares for an excommunication. He still does not know that when he interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally i.e. with LG 16 etc invisible, it is the liberals who have their back to the wall. If they do not affirm de fide teachings (Creeds etc in the original understanding with the Rational Premise) they are in public schism.
They already are in public schism but cannot be exposed since the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei communities interpret Vatican Council II schismatically instead of traditionally.
So how can Cardinal Fernandez offer the Novus Ordo Mass when he interprets LG 8, 14, 16 etc as being explicit exceptions for the dogma EENS ?
He is confusing implicit cases of LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA2 , GS 22 etc as being explicit exceptions for the dogma EENS etc. This is irrational. He wants the SSPX to follow this irrational interpretation of the Council to avoid excommunication. This is coercion and deception. This is also a secular issue.
- Lionel Andrades