05.10.2025
‘VATICAN COUNCIL II LITURGY ‘ IS ALIGNED ONLY WITH THE ROMAN MISSAL : THE POPE MUST CORRECT HIMSELF : 46 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
1. What is the discovery?
The discovery is that Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and has a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Council of Florence 1442), the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. There is continuity with all the catechisms on outside the Church there is no salvation.
2. Could you be specific?
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. AG 7 is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation (846). Meanwhile LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2025. They are always hypothetical.
So they are not objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not explicit exceptions for AG 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
This is the discovery. LG 16 refers to an invisible case. An invisible person cannot be an exception for Feeneyite EENS. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake. It projected invisible case of the baptism of desire etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition.
So the conclusion is: in Heaven there are only Catholics (AG 7, CCC 845,846 etc).
The Church is the new people of God (Nostra Aetate 4).
3. So the Church still teaches outside the Church there is no salvation?
Yes. This is the magisterial teaching of Vatican Council II and the Church. This has been the apostolic teaching. So the post-Conciliar Church is in harmony with Tradition. There is a continuity and not rupture.
4. It is looking at Vatican Council II differently?
Yes. When the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned we must read this as always being a hypothetical case. So they are not exceptions for the orthodox passages, they accompany. They also do not contradict the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. Similarly, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not explicit. We must not confuse what is subjective as being objective.
5. Lumen Gentium 16-invisible is the discovery?
Yes. We cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance in 2025. So when LG 16 is not physically visible, it does not refer to a known person saved outside the Church in 1965-2025.So how can it be an exception for the dogma EENS?
This is the discovery.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) returns to Tradition and LG 16 is not an explicit exception for AG 7, EENS and an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X.
6. So the Council is saying outside the Church there is no salvation?
Yes. Since Ad Gentes 7 is the norm for salvation and Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 16 etc are not exceptions for the norm. A possibility known only to God is not an objective exception for EENS or an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church in 2025.
7. What makes Vatican Council II irrational?
When the pope, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology, they imply that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to visible cases. They would have to be physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church, for them to be exceptions. An invisible person cannot be an exception for EENS in 2025.
But we know that there are no such visible cases. There are no exceptions for EENS.
8. The problem is one of observation?
Yes. What is invisible is confused as being visible. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14).This is an error of observation. An empirical error. What is implicit is confused as being explicit. It is an error in philosophy which spills over into theology.
The false premise is: invisible people are visible in the present times. The false inference is: LG 16 refers to an invisible case of salvation saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. The false conclusion is: there are known exceptions for the dogma EENS, which has become obsolete.
So the New Theology is: outside the Church there is salvation, there is known salvation. So all do not need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, is the bad conclusion. Tradition is made obsolete (Catechisms of Trent, Pius X, and Baltimore…)
9. So the Council interpreted rationally has no exceptions for EENS and the Roman Missal?
None. We return to the old ecclesiology with Ad Gentes 7 while LG 8, 14 and 16 are not explicit exceptions. The lex orandi is the same at every Mass, rite and liturgy because Vatican Council II is traditional.
10. What about the Novus Ordo Mass?
Presently at the Novus Ordo Mass they use the Missal of Pope Paul VI which is based upon Vatican Council II, irrational. They can choose to use the Roman Missal at the Novus Ordo Mass in future. So the homilies will also be different.
The New Ecumenism is based upon the Council having exceptions for EENS. The New Theology and Ecclesiology comes with there being ‘explicit exceptions’ for EENS.
11. So we return to the old theology- outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation- in the diocese and parishes?
Yes. We have to affirm the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally only (AG 7 is not contradicted by LG 16).
Morally, we are obligated to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally.
The Athanasius Creed and the Council of Florence 1442, canonically, can no more be rejected in the name of Vatican Council II irrational (LG 16 is an explicit example of salvation outside the Church and so an exception for EENS).
12. Sedevacantism based upon Vatican Council II is obsolete?
Yes. Since the Council can only be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II irrational, which Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Fernandez accepted. But the Italian archbishop did not affirm Vatican Council II rational (LG 16 is implicit and not explicit).
We return to the old theology at every Holy Mass when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally. The Council determines the lex orandi.
13. Why was all this not known before?
I too was interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally until some 15 years back in Rome. I then had an insight. It was that LG 8, 14, 16 etc referred to invisible cases. So how could they be exceptions for the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ? An exception must exist in our reality. An invisible person cannot be an exception. I realized then that the Council had a continuity with the dogma EENS. There no more was a rupture with Tradition. Loose-ends were tied up.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church did not contradict itself. Neither did it contradict the other catechisms. CCC 1257 (The Necessity of Baptism) did not contradict itself (God is not limited to the Sacraments). Neither was it contradicted by the old catechisms, when they mention the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I).
14. Who agrees with you?
Initially, it was John Martignoni, the American apologist who had a program on EWTN. He referred to the BOD as ‘a zero case’. Then there was the late Mons. Ignacio Barreiro. I knew him well. Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson confirmed it for me on his blog. BOD was not an exception for EENS. Fr. Stefano Visintin OSB, Rector of the University of St. Anselm, Rome had the same message for me when I met him at St. Anselm. Fr. Nevus Muchado op from Brazil I remember well.
Now everyone agrees with me. They say that we cannot meet or see a baptism of desire case. This is something obvious said Fr. Aldo Rossi, the former Prior of the Society of St. Pius X, at Albano, Italy.
15. Vocations will increase now, you believe?
Yes. Now the Church will draw young people who have a traditional faith, which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II. They do not have to choose between Vatican Council II and Tradition. It no more is either-or. There no more is a theological rupture with the founders of the religious communities, like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic Guzman, St. Teresa of Avila…
16. What about ‘the Boston Heresy Case’?
It really referred to the heresy of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing, and the Jesuit Provincial in the USA, the Rector of Boston College and the Holy Office (CDF) in Rome. They confused physically invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma ENS. So the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was political. The excommunication was maintained throughout Vatican Council II. It was lifted after he was asked to recite the Creed. He chose the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.
17. How can a pope teach heresy and be in schism?
The pope is infallible ex cathedra and when he is in harmony with Sacred Tradition. However in reality there have been political pressures and infiltration.
The popes from Pius XII to Leo have interpreted invisible cases of the BOD as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.
The popes from Paul VI to Leo have also interpreted Vatican Council II with LG 14, 16 etc being visible exceptions for EENS. So the Council became a break with Tradition.
These are objective errors which can be verified. It has spread throughout the Church. This is schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium. There are now new interpretations of the Creeds, when BOD is mentioned. This is heresy. We no more have the original understanding of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.
18. Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals are in heresy and schism?
This is not just a personal opinion. I am following the text. The text of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted honestly. This is not a permanent state in which they are. It can be changed with an announcement. All they have to say is that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. They are not explicit examples of salvation outside the Church in 2025.
19. So was the election of Pope Leo valid?
The College of Cardinals who interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally, with reference to the BOD, elected the pope, who makes the same mistake. They simply have to issue a clarification saying LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to physically invisible cases in 2025. Things will adjust themselves.
20. Quite a bold statement- the popes are in heresy and schism?
The proof is there in public. The popes do not affirm the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, the Catechism of Pope Pius X… Why? They are no more contradicted by invisible cases of the baptism of desire.
The popes also do not affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally like me. Their irrational interpretation creates schism with the Church Fathers and popes of the Middle Ages. Before 1949 the apostolic teaching in the Church was outside the Church there was no salvation. Now it is outside the Church there is salvation; there is known salvation. This is a new theology.
21. Are you saying the popes are not apostolic?
In general they are apostolic but not on this issue. Today we have two interpretations of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. One has to be wrong.
For them the Athanasius Creed has exceptions. For me it does not have known exceptions. There are no practical exceptions.
For them Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS. For me it does not.
22. You are saying that the bishops who closed down the Latin Mass are in schism?
Yes. Ask them to prove me wrong. Ask them to affirm the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS. They cannot.
If they say Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS they imply that LG 8, 14, 16 etc, refer to physically visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times, without ‘faith and baptism’. But there are no such known cases in 2025. Invisible people cannot be exceptions for the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal which they do not support. So they do not even affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Neither do they affirm the old catechisms as I do.
23. So there cannot be a liberal-progressivist bishop anymore?
No. Since the Council is no more liberal. Morally, the bishop cannot confuse what is implicit (LG 16) as being explicit and then call it a development of doctrine or a ‘nuanced interpretation’. This is unethical.
24. What about the SSPX?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II irrational. But he did not know about Vatican Council II rational.
The SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II irrational but accept Vatican Council II rational.
25. What about the FSCIRE, the Bologna School?
Alberto Melloni interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. The Council is a break with Tradition for him. So he implies that LG 8, 14, 16 etc, refer to physically visible cases, in the present times. In only this way can there be exceptions for the dogma EENS of the Church Councils, which he does not affirm.
From the secular point of view, how can he continue to use a false premise and false inference to produce a non traditional conclusion and not inform the people about it?
Also scholarships are given by the FSCIRE only to those students who use the false premise, inference and conclusion, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
26. What about the SSPX’s concern about collegiality, ecumenism etc?
When the pope, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II rationally the conclusion is traditional. Collegiality would not be an issue.
There can only be an ecumenism of return to the Church with a traditional Vatican Council II.
Inter-religious dialogue would be a part of mission, in an ecclesiocentric Church and Vatican Council II.
27. You’re Anti Semitic?
I follow Jesus in the Bible. I follow the popes over the centuries as they interpreted the Bible. I follow the Magisterium of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is all this Anti Semitic? I am not against any people or race. It is in charity for their soul that I mention all this.
28. So the Church and the State must not be separated?
No. Since Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric. It is important to be Catholic for salvation from Hell. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. So it is important for Governments to be Catholic.
It is necessary to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation (Quas Primas).
29. What about the Church’s ‘social doctrine’?
There is no change. The Council is traditional. There cannot be innovation in faith and morals, any more, in the name of Vatican Council II.
30. The liberals will not like you?
I follow the text of Vatican Council II. These are not personal likes and dislikes.
31. The media?
They can no more criticize the SSPX and the Traditional Latin Mass groups, since the Council is aligned with the traditionalists and not Reuters, Associated Press and the Catholic News Agency.
32. Will there be a schism?
There could be a schism from the Left if Pope Leo and the cardinals interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so honestly. Some liberals will not accept this. The Synods have their foundation in Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly.
The pope and the cardinals are already in a schism on the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. Pope Pius X and Pope Leo’s interpretation of the Creeds are not the same. St. Francis of Assisi held the strict interpretation of EENS but the understanding of Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals has visible exceptions.
33. The Italian government?
The Italian government must interpret Vatican Council II rationally. At schools and colleges they must interpret the Council only rationally. This is the honest thing to do.
34. The pope is magisterial and you do not follow the pope?
I accept Pope Leo as the pope. I follow the Magisterium of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries. I follow all the Catechisms. The pope is expected to do the same. It is only then that he is magisterial. He is not magisterial when he interprets Vatican Council II dishonestly.
I follow the Magisterium of the 16th century, the Church Fathers and the Apostles. The pope is expected to do the same, to be magisterial on this issue.
35. Many people are going to Hell, Our Lady said at Fatima, Vatican Council II has the same message?
Yes. This is the message of Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. We know that billions of people die outside the Catholic Church, without Catholic faith and the baptism of water and so are lost eternally.
36. The implicit-explicit mistake is there in two papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican?
Yes. They have quoted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston which is referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16).So they assume that there are explicit exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The EENS of the Church Councils which defined EENS has objective exceptions for the ITC. This is non traditional and not part of the deposit of the faith. . LOHO made a mistake when it projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions. This was not done before 1949. It is common sense that the baptism of desire is an invisible case. Similarly hypothetical cases of LG 14 and 16 are not objective exceptions for EENS or the Athanasius Creed. The Council was not ecclesiocentic for Cardinal Ratzinger and instead it was a rupture with Tradition.
Here is the ITC with the mistake.
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)…
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821). The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69). In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions.
Christianity and the World Religions - …
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.- International Theological Commission, The Hope of Salvation for Infancts who die without being baptised’
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die …
37. Dominus Iesus of Cardinal Ratzinger are Christocentric but not Ecclesiocentric?
Yes, since Vatican Council II was interpreted irrationally to produce exceptions for EENS. They followed the objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO.
So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) has been placed in the Denzinger with invisible cases of the baptism of desire being visible exceptions for EENS, as it was known over the centuries.
38. Violating the Principle of Non Contradiction?
Yes the International Theological Commission papers and the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
How can the baptism of desire cases be on earth and in Heaven at the same time?
39. Placuit Deo Press Conference of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj?
At the Placuit Deo Press Conference Cardinal Ladaria was asked by an Associated Press journalist if the Catholic Church still teaches that it has a superiority in salvation. The Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, projected Lumen Gentium 8 (subsists in) as an exception for EENS. It was as if he knew of non Catholics saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, where the true Church subsists and he is aware of it.
40. All the books on Vatican Council II are obsolete?
In general the books on Vatican Council II were written with the false premise (invisible people are visible), false inference (LG 16 refers to visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times) and false, non traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS).
So the interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational and the interpretation of EENS, the ‘nuanced version’ is false.
This can be seen in the books on Vatican Council II published by the Oxford University Press, Amazon, Angelus Press, Ignatius Press etc.
41. Books written on Vatican Council II by the traditionalists are also obsolete?
Yes. The books written by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Davies, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Romano Amerio, Ludwig Ott, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. Anthony Cekada are obsolete. In the present times Peter Kwasniewski is a Cushingite on Vatican Council II. Also irrational on the Council are Alcuin Reid, Matthias Gaudron, Fr. Chad Ripperger and Aidan Nichols…
42. Non CatholicS and non Christians are outside the Catholic Church?
Yes. Those who die without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church are lost forever. This has been the traditional theology of the Church now supported by Ad Gentes 7 and not contradicted by Lumen Gentium or Nostra Aetate etc.
43. Apostolic Visitations are only apostolic with Vatican Council II rational?
Yes. The Vatican visitation of the diocese of Frejuf-Toulon, France was not apostolic. Since the visiting ecclesiastics interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. Similarly the visitation of the FSSP should have been based upon the Council interpreted only rationally and so traditionally.
44. The Catholic Identity Conference is not Catholic?
They are not Catholic in the sense, Michael Matt, interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. He does not seem to want to affirm Feeneyite EENS. It would mean that he made a mistake all these years and so did Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests.
This conference is irrational on Vatican Council II. It is Cushingite. It is heretical and schismatic on the Creeds, Councils and old Catechisms. The same as the liberals and the progressivists.
45.Brian Burch will attend a political Mass of the Paulist Fathers in Rome?
Yes. The Holy Mass of the Paulist Fathers of the American community in Rome will be political on Vatican Council II.The Vatican Council II liturgy will be based upon the irrational interpretation of the Council.
The Paulists reject the dogma EENS, like the founder of their religious community. They project LG 8, 14, 16 etc as visible exceptions for EENS. So the Council is a break with Tradition.
The U.S Ambassador to the Holy See, Brian Burch, could announce that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only. So they are not explicit exceptions for the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
He could also ask President Trump and Pope Leo to make this announcement.
The Paulist Fathers will then have to return to Tradition or go into public schism.
46. Pope Leo in an interview said the Latin Mass must follow ‘the Vatican II liturgy’?
The Vatican II liturgy is based upon the Council interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly. The Mass is Cushingite and not Feeneyite. It is ecumenically indifferent. It follows the New Missal which does not support the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms on outside the Church there is no salvation. It opposes the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal.
Vatican Council II rational instead, supports the Roman Missal which must be used at the Novus Ordo Mass and all liturgies. It is traditional in pre-and post Counciliar times.
There cannot be a liturgy which is a rupture with Vatican Council II and the traditional interpretation of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. The lex orandi cannot be changed with a fake premise, inference and conclusion. This is not Vatican Council II. - Lionel Andrades