CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT ALLOW THE SSPX TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY, TRADITIONALLY AND SO CANONICALLY : HE WAS IN DOCTRINAL SCHISM WITH ‘ LG 16 VISIBLE’
CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT ALLOW THE SSPX TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY, TRADITIONALLY AND SO CANONICALLY : HE WAS IN DOCTRINAL SCHISM WITH ‘ LG 16 VISIBLE’
Cardinal Ratzinger did not allow the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II rationally, traditionally and so canonically: he was in doctrinal schism with ‘LG 16 visible’.
Ratzinger kept it a secret. He was in schism with the LG 16-visible premise. He allowed the traditionalist Fr. Leonard Feeney in Boston to remain excommunicated in 1965.He did not announce that Feeney was correct there were no visible cases of the baptism of desire. He kept silent.
Then he excommunicated the Cushingite traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. They had rejected the non traditional conclusion of Vatican Council II. The Council emerged non traditional when it was interpreted with the LG 16 visible premise of Karl Rahner. This error of Rahner is there in his book The Christian of the Future.
Pope Benedict XVI said that the SSPX had a doctrinal problem and so could not be recognized canonically. He did not tell the SSPX that there would be no doctrinal problem if Vatican Council II was interpreted rationally. He did not tell them to interpret implicit cases of LG 8, 14, 16 UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as just being implicit. Then they could not be explicit examples of salvation outside the Church and so objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).When LG 16 referred to an invisible case there could no more be ‘ a development of doctrine’. He did not tell the SSPX that there really were no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II for the dogma EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the old Roman Missal, which on Good Friday said that Jews needed to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
It was Cardinal Ratzinger who had a doctrinal problem. He was creating schism with his ‘visible cases’ of LG 8, 14, 16 etc and then claiming Tradition was obsolete with Vatican Council II. He meant Vatican Council II, irrational.
Pope Benedict asked Cardinal Ladaria to dialogue with the SSPX but of course, not tell them, that Vatican Council II really supported the traditionalists with Ad Gentes 7 while LG 16 was not an exception for AG 7 or EENS. With Vatican Council II interpreted rationally there could no more be liberalism.
If Pope Leo tomorrow announces that Vatican Council Ii is to be interpreted only rationally will Cardinal Ladaria, Cardinal Cupich, Bishop Barron and others choose to remain in the Catholic Church?
- Lionel Andrades
-
8.04.2026
CARDINALS FERNANDEZ, LADARIA, O’MALLEY, BISHOP LIBASCI AND FR. LAIRE LIKE CARDINAL RATZINGER, INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II UNETHICALLY AND SCHISMATICALLY.
CARDINALS FERNANDEZ, LADARIA, O’MALLEY, BISHOP …
7.04.2026
CARD.FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM ON VATICAN COUNCIL II LIKE CARDINAL RATZINGER : CANONICALLY HE CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE THE SSPX
CARD.FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM ON VATICAN COUNCIL …