Catholic lay man in Rome. Discoverer of the Rational Interpretation of Vatican Council II, a breakthrough for the present Catholic Church.The sedevacantists reject the pope because of Vatican Council II irrational. When the Council is rational it supports Tradition. There is no reason for them to reject the Council or the pope. Even the SSPX can now accept Vatican Council II , rational, and meet the demand that they accept the Council. The Council is in harmony with Tradition. So they can ask for canonical recognition. They can also demand that Pope Leo XIV interpret Vatican Council II rationally, since this is ethical and that he also accepts Tradition, as did Pope Leo XIII. The main line Catholic Church must now be traditional since the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms can only be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional.
Leo XIV has proclaimed St. John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Church
02.11.2025
A.I SEES SCHISM OVER VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL : THE CATHOLIC CHURCH RETURNS TO THE MIDDLE AGES
x.com/i/grok?conversation=1984937922500427966
LUMEN GENTIUM 14 AND LUMEN GENTIUM 16 ARE HYPOTHETICAL: FERNANDEZ WAS IN SCHISM AND NOT VIGANO’S …
I am not a sedevacantist. There I have answered your questions. I am sorry I could not get back to you earlier.
Le Vatican enquête sur le cas des Rédemptoristes transalpins
31.10.2025
LUMEN GENTIUM 14 AND LUMEN GENTIUM 16 ARE HYPOTHETICAL: FERNANDEZ WAS IN SCHISM AND NOT VIGANO’S TRADITION: A RE –TRIAL IS NEEDED BY POPE LEO
An appeal has to be made to Pope Leo pointing out that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 1965-2025.So they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX etc. It was Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez who was not affirming the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. He was interpreting Vatican Council II, irrationally. LG 8,14, 16 etc referred to visible exceptions for the dogma EENS etc, fr hm. He did not affirm and EENS and neither Vatican Council II, rational (LG 16 invisible), during the trial for schism of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano..
So for Archbishop Vigano to accept Vatican Council II, Pope Leo must clarify that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only. They do not contradict the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms in the original.As they were interpreted over the centuries. Vatican Council II, (LG 8, 14, 16 etc) also does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. So Vatican Council II has a continuity with the Catechism of Pope Pius X and also the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal.
So the liberals like Fernandez who do not affirm de fide teachings and who interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly, are really in schism.
Archbishop Vigano must not be forced to accept a pope and Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, who interprets Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church dishonestly and so non traditionally.
There must be a re-trial of the Vigano case.
All the ecclesiastics must choose to be ethical on Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Presently, they interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, irrationally in public (LG 16 is visible) and there is no denial from them, for political-left reasons.
There should be a visitation of Vatican departments and those who are employed there. There should be a visitation of the Archdiocese of Chicago and Cardinal Cupich in his new office at the Vatican, the same for Cardinal Brian Farrell and the Legion of Christ at their universities and seminaries.
There must be a visitation of the Archdiocese of Paris and the new bishop at Frejuf Toulon, France. They must be asked to affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally only and also the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. The Syllbus is no more contradicted by Vatican Council II. The FSSP and Emmanuel community must do the same.
How can the present new bishop of Frejuf Toulon be part of a visitation of the Emmanuel community, when he interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally and does not deny it? He then offers Mass in this condition and the monks in Alcuin Reid’s community have to attend and receive the Eucharist from him.
If the French bishops would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise ( invisible people are visible), then theologically, they would be traditionalists, affirming the past ecclesiocentricism of the Church.All of them.
Don Pietro Leone for example, who features often on the web-blog Rorate Caeili, interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like Bishop Robert Barron and the liberals. Conservative modernists - are also a problem in the Church.- Lionel Andrades
Reginald Marie Garrigou-La Grange O.P
He interpreted Vatican Council Ii irrationally and not rationally as do the Dominicans today.
Vatican Investigates Case of Transalpine Redemptorists
31.10.2025
LUMEN GENTIUM 14 AND LUMEN GENTIUM 16 ARE HYPOTHETICAL: FERNANDEZ WAS IN SCHISM AND NOT VIGANO’S TRADITION: A RE –TRIAL IS NEEDED BY POPE LEO
An appeal has to be made to Pope Leo pointing out that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 1965-2025.So they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX etc. It was Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez who was not affirming the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. He was interpreting Vatican Council II, irrationally. LG 8,14, 16 etc referred to visible exceptions for the dogma EENS etc, fr hm. He did not affirm and EENS and neither Vatican Council II, rational (LG 16 invisible), during the trial for schism of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano..
So for Archbishop Vigano to accept Vatican Council II, Pope Leo must clarify that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only. They do not contradict the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms in the original.As they were interpreted over the centuries. Vatican Council II, (LG 8, 14, 16 etc) also does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. So Vatican Council II has a continuity with the Catechism of Pope Pius X and also the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal.
So the liberals like Fernandez who do not affirm de fide teachings and who interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly, are really in schism.
Archbishop Vigano must not be forced to accept a pope and Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, who interprets Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church dishonestly and so non traditionally.
There must be a re-trial of the Vigano case.
All the ecclesiastics must choose to be ethical on Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Presently, they interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, irrationally in public (LG 16 is visible) and there is no denial from them, for political-left reasons.
There should be a visitation of Vatican departments and those who are employed there. There should be a visitation of the Archdiocese of Chicago and Cardinal Cupich in his new office at the Vatican, the same for Cardinal Brian Farrell and the Legion of Christ at their universities and seminaries.
There must be a visitation of the Archdiocese of Paris and the new bishop at Frejuf Toulon, France. They must be asked to affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally only and also the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. The Syllbus is no more contradicted by Vatican Council II. The FSSP and Emmanuel community must do the same.
How can the present new bishop of Frejuf Toulon be part of a visitation of the Emmanuel community, when he interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally and does not deny it? He then offers Mass in this condition and the monks in Alcuin Reid’s community have to attend and receive the Eucharist from him.
If the French bishops would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise ( invisible people are visible), then theologically, they would be traditionalists, affirming the past ecclesiocentricism of the Church.All of them.
Don Pietro Leone for example, who features often on the web-blog Rorate Caeili, interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like Bishop Robert Barron and the liberals. Conservative modernists - are also a problem in the Church.- Lionel Andrades
Gregory Baum, architetto della Nostra Aetate e perito al Concilio Vaticano II, ha confessato di aver …
Anche Nostra Aetate viene da l'errore nel il Lettera di Santo Ufficio in 1949 a Arcivescovo di Boston. Quella Lettera conusa che e invisibile come eccezione per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus()EENS). Ma oggi noi conosciamo che Nostra Aetate 2 non e una visibile eccezione per Ad Gentes 7 and neanche per i Catechismi che insegna fuori della Chiesa Cattolics non c'e salvezza. Il Concilio Vaticano II ( AG 7) e ecclesiocentrica come il dogma EENS di Concilio di Firenze 1442.
Il Vaticano indaga sul caso dei Redentoristi Transalpini
C'e confusione. C'e due interpretazione di Concilio Vaticano II. Uno e razionale e tradizionale. L'altra e irratzionale e non tradizionale. I tradiziionalisti e il Vaticano usano l'interpretazione irrazionale. Cosa la colpa non e con il Concilio ma l'interpretazione di Concilio con i tradizionalisti.
Honoring the African version of Pacha Mama
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7). with no practical exceptions in 2025, in LG 8, 14, 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. .So there needs to be a Vatican visitation of the Department for Inter Religious dialogue which misreprestent Vatican Council II. The norm for slavtion is AG 7 and there is nothing in Nostra Aetate to contradict AG 7.This is not said by the cardinal incharge.
Leo XIV: "All Religions Are Mothers. All Believers are Brothers"
Yes. But precisely it is intepreting LG 8, 14, 16 etc in Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally and so the conclusion is non traditional and schismatic.
Leo XIV: "All Religions Are Mothers. All Believers are Brothers"
He has had his religious formation with Vatican Council II irrational and so liberal. We now know that the Council can be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional. The Council is no more liberal.
Honoring the African version of Pacha Mama
Nostra Aetate cannot be read in isolation. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. It means all Hindus, Buddhists etc need to be members of the Catholic Church with Catholic faith and the baptism of water to avoid the fires of Hell. Ad Gentes 7 is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while LG 8, 14, 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not objective exceptions but only hypothetical cases. So Vatican Council II does not contradict Tradition. Today all inter-.religious dialogue and ecumenism must be ecclesiocentric since Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric.
The Vatican hosted on October 28 an event to mark 60years of Vatican II's 'Nostra Aetate.' «Le origini …
Vatican Council II, Ad gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. Non Catholics religions are not paths to salvation and their members are oriented to the Church ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846). There is nothing in Nostra Aetate or Lumen Gentium to contradict Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no objective exceptions mentioned in Nostra Aetate to contradict the Athananasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic for everlasting salvation.
Islamization of Europe Dooms Our Children – Allah's Willing Executioners
If they interpreted Vatican Council II rationally the Catholic Church would still be officially saying outside the Church there is no salvation.
Vatican’s Fréjus-Toulon Enforcer Now Sent to the Community Emmanuel
If the Emmanuel community would interpret Vatican Council II rationally there could not be a visitation . Since the community would ask the visitors to affirm Vatican Council II rationally. The irrational version which they hold is heretical and schismatic. It is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed etc which the visitors do not affirm.
THE VISITATION INTERPRET THE 1949 LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON IRRATIONALLY, WITH THE RED BEING AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE.
THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONALLY WITH THE RED BEING AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE.
THEY INTERPRET THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IRRATIONALLY WITH CCC 847-848 BEING AN EXCEPTION FOR CCC 845-846.
THE VISITATION ENFORCES HERESY AND SCHISM WHEN THEY INTEPRRET LUMEN GENTIUM 14 AND AD GENTES 7 IRRATIONALLY AND EXPECT THE EMMANUEL COMMUNITY TO DO THE SAME.
THE VISITATION IS NOT APOSTOLIC. THEY HAVE REJECTE D THE ATHANASIUS CREED, CHANGED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NICENE CREED WHEN THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND REJECTED ALL THE CATECHISMS ON THE TEACHING OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION. THIS IS NOT CATHOLIC.
Leo XIV: "All Religions Are Mothers. All Believers are Brothers"
They all cite Vatican Council II. They really are referring to the Vatican Council II irrational of Pope Paul Vi, Rahner, Ratzinger and Lefebvre,. For them LG 8,14,16 etc refer to visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which otherwise would be saying all the non Catholics above are oriented to Hell unless they are members of the Catholic Church. This is also the message of Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II which is not contradicted by anything in Nostra Aetate or Lumen Gentium etc.
They interpret Vatican Counci II irrationally with the red being an exception for the blue and I do not do so.
They interpret the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with the red being an eception for the blue.. I avoid this mistake. This was also the mistake of Cardinal Raymnond Burke and Roberto dei Mattei at the Latin Mass at St. Peter's Basillica the other day
They itnerpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally to support liberalism and a break with teh past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. I avoid this mistake.
2023 and 2024: No One Dared to Ask Francis to Allow the Roman Rite
Here is Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 in Vatican Council II which Cardinal Burke and Roberto dei Mattei interpret irrationally at the Latin Mass. For me the red is not an exception for the blue and so the Council does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But for Cardinal Nurke and Robeeto dei Mattei the red passages contradict the blue passages and so Vatican Council II is a break with the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal. This is how Cardinal Cupich and Bishops Sanborn and Pvarunas interpret Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7. The sedevacantists do not offer the Latin Mass with the same ecclesiology as the Cathollic Church in the Middle Ages.
2023 and 2024: No One Dared to Ask Francis to Allow the Roman Rite
Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which Cardinal Burke and Roberto dei Mattei interpret irrationally, schismatically and heretically at the Latin Mass at St.Peter's Basilica. They are politically correct with the Left at the Traditional Latin Mass which is not that of the Mass of the Ages.
2023 and 2024: No One Dared to Ask Francis to Allow the Roman Rite
Here is the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with the hypothetical and invisible passage in 2025 not contradicting the orthodox passage in blue for me. But for Cardinal Burke and Roberto dei Mattei at the Latin Mass 'the red contradicts the blue'. This is the New Theology. It is the New Theology of Rahner-Ratzinger and Lefebvre. They were irrational. This is how Cardinal Blaise Cupic also interprets the 19490 Letter of the Holy Ofice. It is the same as the sedevacantists and traditionalists. It is with this error that there will be a Vatican visitation of the Emmanuel community. This is not apostolic.
2023 and 2024: No One Dared to Ask Francis to Allow the Roman Rite
Here we see that the passages in red refer to hypotheical and invisible cases and so they do not contradict the passage in blue. But for Cardinal Burke and Roberto dei Mattei they are exceptions. The red passages contradict the blue passages. So Vatican Council II which they accept offiically, is a rupture with the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal. They do not state that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.