IGNATIUS PRESS LG 16 ERROR : CARDINALS FERNANDEZ AND SARAH ARE ALSO IN SCHISM.
IGNATIUS PRESS LG 16 ERROR : CARDINALS FERNANDEZ AND SARAH ARE ALSO IN SCHISM.
Ignatius Press agrees with me. LG 16 is invisible. Ratzinger made a mistake in his books published by Ignatius. It is the same with the books written by Cardinal Sarah. The books indicate that Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez is also in schism with the LG 16 visible error. The books on Hans Urs Balthazar also published by Ignatius carry the LG 16 visible virus. So there is a rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Magisterium of his time.
Fr. Joseph Fessio sj, Mark Brumley and Carl Olsen are schismatic with Rahner’s LG 16 mistake, with which he rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and criticized ‘clerical triumphalism’ made obsolete for him with ‘situation ethics’ and Protestant fundamental theology.
This has a bearing on the recent Fernandez-Pagliarani meeting. Cardinal Fernandez continues to interpret Vatican Council II with the LG 16 error and so is in public schism. Since Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier and St. Robert Bellarmine interpreted the baptism of desire as being an invisible case. This still is common sense.
In public schism, Fernandez is not allowed to offer Holy Mass. Canonically, he must be a believing Catholic to be the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, all need faith and baptism for salvation from Hell. All. So it is a mortal sin when Fernandez interprets the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed with the LG 16 innovation. At Fatima, Portugal, Our Lady literally, showed Sister Lucia Hell with a lake of fire.
For me the baptism of desire refers to an invisible case but for Cardinal Fernandez it is physically visible. If it was not a visible case he would be affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesium null salus, like me and the St. Benedict Centers in the USA.
For Cardinal Fernandez the Athanasius Creed has exceptions (LG 14, 16 etc). For me these are imaginary cases and not personally seen people in the present times.People who are not there cannot be exceptions.
So canonically how could Cardinal Fernandez judge Archbishop Vigano when the former interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms with alleged physically visible exceptions of the baptism of desire etc? He does not interpret them rationally.
We now know that the popes from Pius XII to Leo XIV made a mistake with visible baptism of desire. They confused what was implicit as being explicit and they were not corrected by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, the SSPX bishops…
The popes from Paul VI to Leo XIV have made the same LG 16 visible mistake which is there in Karl Rahner’s book, The Christian of the Future.
So we now know that there is a built in error in the books on Vatican Council II, published by the Vatican Press, Ignatius, Angelus, Amazon and other Press. So their interpretation is not apostolic and magisterial. There is schism with the dogma EENS, for example, as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century. So we have official and general schism created with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is there in the books of Cardinal Sarah and Cardinal Sarah, published by Igantius. – Lionel Andrades
18. 03.2026
WITH THE LG 16 MISTAKE VATICAN COUNCIL II IS SCHISMATIC FOR FERNANDEZ AND FISICHELLA
WITH THE LG 16 MISTAKE VATICAN COUNCIL II IS …