That is pastoral. To guide the sheep away from danger sometimes the dog has to bark.

11.06.2026
Morally, Pope Leo, the cardinals and bishops, must only interpret Vatican Council II rationally. There is only the honest option now.
Vatican agrees that cardinals Fernandez, Zuppi. Semeraro and Archbishop Forte are in schism on the Nicene Creed etc. There is no denial.
The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Melloni and Riccardi is schismatic and dishonest. We have a rational and honest version now.
NEW DISCOVERY
There is a new discovery in the Catholic Church. It is: LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible and hypothetical cases only in 2026. It means Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) is aligned with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Council of Florence 1442. While LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not explicit exceptions for AG 7 and EENS. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger kept this information a secret. He did not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that the Council could be interpreted with LG 8, 14, 15 etc being invisible and so Vatican Council II would be ecclesiocentric and traditional. Instead he excommunicated Lefebvre and the new bishops for not affirming Vatican Council II irrational with LG 8, 14, 16 allegedly visible.
So now we know that we can interpret the Nicene Creed with LG 16 visible or invisible and the conclusion will be different. With LG 16 we have a new version and so schism. With LG 16 invisible we have orthodoxy.
If Pope Leo interpreted Vatican Council II, the Creeds, etc with LG 16 invisible there would be the hermeneutic of continuity with all Tradition. But when he continues to use LG 16 visible premise there is schism, a hermeneutic of discontinuity with the past de fide teachings, the deposit of the faith.
With LG 16 visible, cardinals Fernandez, Zuppi and Semeraro and Archbishop Bruno Forte are in schism. The original interpretation of the Nicene Creed was with the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I.) was as being invisible cases. I interpret the Nicene Creed, with LG 16 invisible.
So Alberto Melloni and Andrea Riccardi interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms irrationally and schismatically. I choose the rational and orthodox option.
INVISIBLE- VISIBLE DISTINCTION
Whenever someone says that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition; with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal, they imply that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to visible cases in the present times. Invisible people cannot be exceptions for EENS etc.So we have to make the invisible-visible distinction.
For me LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to invisible cases. This is something obvious. It is common knowledge. It was common sense over the centuries. If anyone is saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and baptism, it can only be known to God. Defacto, practically, there are no such cases known to us on earth.
So this is the great discovery- LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always physically invisible. But this was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained. It was not also known to the liberals at that time. Cardinal Ratzinger was in schism with LG 16 visible and so also Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ottaviani. But so also Archbishop Lefebvre who was using the LG 16 visible premise as does Fr. Davide Pagliarani today.
With Vatican Council II rational (LG 16 invisible) there no more is the traditionalist-liberal division. The polarization comes with LG 16 visible. The Council is no more liberal with LG 16 invisible.
It means cardinals Hollerich, Grech, McElroy, Radcliffe, Semeraro, Fernandez, Cupich and the other liberal cardinals, are in schism today.
If Pope Leo interprets Vatican Council II with the invisible premise he would cease to be schismatic. He would be magisterial and apostolic on Vatican Council II, the Councils, Creeds, and Catechisms. The norm would be a Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, with LG 16 invisible.
Over the centuries they interpreted being saved in I.I and BOD rationally. But in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, BOD and I.I were mistaken as being visible cases. Then it was concluded wrongly that BOD and I.I were objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This was the EENS of the Church Councils which defined EENS, and did not mention any known exceptions.
Now we know that the Athanasius Creed, which says all need to be Catholic for salvation, does not have any exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus does not have explicit exceptions in BOD and I.I.
It means the whole Church must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and affirm the Athanasius Creed and dogma EENS. This includes the liberal cardinals and bishops.
ONE HONEST OPTION ONLY
Morally, Pope Leo, the cardinals and bishops, must only interpret Vatican Council II rationally. This is the honest option.
We can now choose the hermeneutic of continuity or discontinuity with Tradition. It is as simple as switching a light switch on or off.
With LG 16 invisible, the SSPX can seek canonical recognition. The Council supports Tradition. There is no change in faith and morals, since the ecclesiology has not changed. The Council is no more controversial for the traditionalists.
Vatican Council II is no more a rupture with the Syllabus of Pius IX, the Catechism of Pius X and the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the 16th century at the Latin Mass. Mission is ecclesiocentric as it was for the founders of the Jesuit community in the Midde Ages.
The Council is now aligned with the concept of EENS of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA.
The approved Ecclesia Dei communities can no more continue to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 visible.Lionel Andrades

KI ist einfach nur idiotisch.

Gegenbrunn, was für ein Quatsch KI schreibt. (gegenüber)