02.07.2026
Canonically, how can Cardinals Fernandez, Ladaria, O’Malley and Bishop Peter Libasci, interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, when Brother Andre Marie mimc interprets it rationally at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA ?
In two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican, Vatican Council II is interpreted irrationally by Cardinal Fernandez and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj.They are Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised.
With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II the Council has no explicit exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, of the Council of Florence 1442.But with the irrational interpretation of the cardinals there are exceptions for EENS.So Tradition is made obsolete for the cardinals with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
The sedevacantists CMRI in New Hampshire interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA. But the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center in NH interpret Vatican Council II rationally, not confusing what is implicit as being explicit.
But a Decree of Prohibitions has been placed against them by Bishop Libasci and Cardinal Fernandez.They want the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to interpret Vatican Council II schismatically and heretically.They want the Slaves to confuse what is invisible as being visible.
So the SSPX has been declared to be in schism when they reject the Council interpreted irrationally by Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Leo.They follow the mistake of Cardinal Ratzinger.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell Michael Davies at Una Voce, Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that the orthodox ( blue) passages in line with EENS, dominate in Vatican Council II while the hypothetical ( red) and invisible passages in the present times, are not objective exceptions for the orthodox passages.So today Una Voce interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez and so may not be in schism for Cardinal Fernandez.
So at the Latin Mass in New Hampshire the Slaves are rational and traditional on Vatican Council II and the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, but Bishop Peter Libasci, Fr. Georges de Laire, the Judicial Vicar in New Hampshire and the Curia are irrational and schismatic.So the SSPX and Una Voce are still irrational on Vatican Council II, like Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez and the Slaves, who are rational and orthodox, cannot get their support at the Latin Mass.
The Slaves are Feeneyite, while the SSPX, the CMRI, Una Voce , Bishop Libasci and Cardinal Fernandez are Cushingite.
The division is caused by LG 16 visible or invisible , known or unknown, implicit or explicit.
So the division in the Church is not caused by the SSPX ordaining bishops but comes from the rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 16 visible ( irrational) and LG 16 invisible ( rational) .
Petitions need to be filed against cardinals and bishops and priests who violate Canon Law and interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally and so dishonestly. This is being done also be Cardinal Fernandez, the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.They use a False Premise, which is dishonesty and the people do not know about it.
Even if Pope Leo excommunicates the other Latin Mass traditionalists, there will be Catholic conservatives, who go for the Novus Ordo Mass, and who interpret LG 16 as being invisible.So at the Novus Ordo Mass for them, there is a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed with no known exceptions, an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus, Collegiality based upon EENS and AG 7 not contradicted by LG 8, 14, 16, there is traditional ecclesiocentric mission and evangelisation, a Feeneyite and not Cushingite Vatican Council II and an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Roman Missal . This will be there at the Novus Ordo, Latin Mass, Syro Malabar Mass and other liturgy.
The Council is no more liberal. So the petitions, canonical and secular, can be filed by conservatives at the Novus Ordo Mass and not necessarily the Latin Mass groups.
How will Cardinal Fernandez respond when a petition is filed against him ? Will he admit that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to invisible and hypothetical cases in 2026 ? Will he admit that he and Archbishop Joseph Kennedy made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II in the Vigano-schism trial ?
Will he admit that Bishop Michael Olsen interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly in the case of the Arlington Carmelite Nuns whom he excommunicated. Their Carmelite faith was at odds with his interpretation of Vatican Council II, irrationally.
How can the Archbishop of Detroit interpret the Council with a fake premise as does Cardinal Fernandez ? Is this a legal issue ?
Will Cardinal Fernandez affirm the dogma EENS with no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II, as does Brother Andre Marie MICM in New Hampshire ? Does it mean that the Decree of Prohibitions will apply now to him too ? If he interprets Vatican Council II rationally will he emerge a rad-trad ?
Can lay members of the SSPX contest these points in general before cardinals, bishops and priests citing canon law? - Lionel Andrades