THE PREFECT OF THE HOLY SEE DICASTERY FOR COMMUNICATIONS IS ASKED IF LUMEN GENTIUM 16 REFERS TO AN INVISBLE OR VISBLE CASE IN 2026 : SSPX- FERNANDEZ TALKS
14.02.2026THE PREFECT OF THE HOLY SEE DICASTERY FOR COMMUNICATIONS IS ASKED IF LUMEN GENTIUM 16 REFERS TO AN INVISBLE OR VISBLE CASE IN 2026 : SSPX- FERNANDEZ TALKS
I told him I was there to ask him only one question: Does Lumen Gentium 16 being saved in invincible ignorance, in Vatican Council II refer to an invisible or physically visible case in 2026? He did not answer.
I continued: For me it is an invisible case. We cannot see someone saved in invincible ignorance outsides the Catholic Church, someone saved without faith and the baptism of water.
He did not comment. He was seeing off Sr. Nina Benedikta Krapic, the new Vice Director of the Holy See Press Office.
Ruffini and I had briefly introduced ourselves earlier.
I had initially asked at the front desk to see Matteo Bruni, the Director of the Holy See Press Office, when Paulo Ruffini arrived there.
Before he could comment I told him that I would like to quote him.
The subject, I mentioned is linked to the Fernandez- Pagliarani dialogue. I told him that LG 16 refers to an invisible case. So LG 16 is not an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Vatican Council II (AG 7) is ecclesiocentric and supports the traditionalists.
So when LG 16 is invisible- and he did not contest this- then Vatican Council II (AG 7) is aligned with EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Pius IX and all the Catechisms. There are no exceptions for them.
This was my first meeting with an official of the Dicastery for Communications.
I had meant to tell them that there was a rational interpretation of Vatican council II with a Rational Premise (invisible people are invisible, LG 116 refers to an invisible case in 2026).With this rational interpretation of Vatican Council, the Council and Catechism (all the catechisms) have a traditional conclusion.
With the Rational Premise, we change the meaning of the text of Vatican Council II. We must not confuse what is invisible as being visible, subjective as being objective, as is being now. So we have the same text of Vatican Council II before us except, that now LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible and hypothetical cases
only.
There are numerous reports on social media on this subject.
When Paulo Ruffini did not correct me- he ccold not contradict the obvious- he indicated, for me, that Vatican Council II is traditionalist and is aligned with Catholic Feeneyite Tradition, as opposed to the SSPX’s Cushingite Tradition and Fernandez’s Cushingite liberalism.
That LG 16 refers to an invisible and not visible case was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops, before their excommunication.
Pope Leo also did not tell the Superior General of the FSSP, Fr. John Berg, recently, that the FSSP could interpret Vatican Council II rationally, with the Rational Premise. The conclusion is traditional. The Council is no more liberal.
Bishop Bernard Fellay the former Superior General of the SSPX, it is reported, accompanied Fr. Davide Pagliarani during the Feb.12 talks. He was not informed about the Rational Premise.
If Bishop Fellay goes ahead with the July 1, consecration of bishops, he could be excommunicated a second time and still not be informed about the Rational Premise.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has been declared schismatic, since has refused to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the Irrational Premise, which is dishonest and not Catholic. The FSSP interprets Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise and so is allowed the Latin Mass and they have not been declared schismatic.
With the Rational Premise, it is Cardinal Fernandez who will be in schism for not affirming the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Pius IX and all the Catechisms on EENS, with no known exceptions. I interpret all the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally only.
Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston did not accept ‘visible baptism of desire’, when he said that there was no baptism of desire. He meant there was no ‘known baptism of desire case’ in 1949. There still is no apology from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Office 1949) for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Holy See made an objective mistake. Fr. Karl Rahner repeats this LG 16- visible mistake in his writings and talks and it was followed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – and also Archbishop’ Marcel Lefebvre. - Lionel Andrades