WITH LG 16 INVISIBLE FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM. WITH LG 16 VISIBLE PAGLIARANI IS IN SCHISM. POPE LEO MUST CHOOSE
17.03.2026WITH LG 16 INVISIBLE FERNANDEZ IS IN SCHISM. WITH LG 16 VISIBLE PAGLIARANI IS IN SCHISM. POPE LEO MUST CHOOSE
Lumen Gentium 16 being saved in invincible ignorance refers to an invisible case in 2026 and so does not contradict the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442, which did not mention any exceptions. Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez does not affirm it. This is schism. Canonically, he must affirm the dogma EENS with no exceptions and the Athanasius Creed with no known exceptions in Vatican Council II. He does not do this. This is an impediment to offering Holy Mass and holding the office of Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
Cardinal Fernandez confuses what is implicit as being explicit and the people do not know this. They think Vatican Council II is only liberal and a break with Tradition. This is false. It is a lie. It could be a misdemeanor in some countries.
1. With Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally (LG 16 visible) Cardinal Fernandez declared Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano to be in schism. But with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally (LG 16 refers to a hypothetical and invisible person) Fernandez and Archbishop Joseph Kennedy would be in schism.
2. With Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise (invisible cases of LG 16 are visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) he laicized the Arlington Discalced Carmelite Sisters in Texas, USA. With Vatican Council II rational (LG 16 invisible is not an exception for the Athanasius Creed), Fernandez and Bishop Michael Olsen, the bishop of Fort Worth Texas, would be in schism.
3.With LG 16 invisible and not visible Cardinal Fernandez projects Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as held by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St.Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA. A Decree of Prohibitions is maintained against them. This is even though they affirm the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally unlike the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. Fernandez and Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) , it must be noted, do not interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally.
Also, how can the SSPX ordain new bishops who interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like Cardinal Fernandez?
How can the SSPX ordain bishops on July 1, who do not affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed with no known exceptions in the present times? For them, there are exceptions of LG 14 and LG 16. They follow the error of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, as does Cardinal Fernandez.
There is no clarification or denial from the SSPX.
Archbishop Joseph Kennedy and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, both, interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and so schismatically.
We now know that we can choose the hermeneutic of continuity or discontinuity with Tradition. This was not clear in 1965 and the following years.
If Cardinal Fernandez excommunicates the SSPX he is choosing the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. LG 16 is a visible exception for the dogma EENS.The exceptions make an ecumenism of return obsolete, for him.
But now we know that LG 16 is always invisible. We cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Catholic Church in invincible ignorance. Similarly we cannot meet a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire. So Vatican Council II (LG 14, 16) has no explicit exceptions for the dogma EENS, which Cardinal Fernandez does not affirm and so is in schism.
Cardinal Fernandez and Archbishop Kennedy at the DDF, interpret the Nicene, Athanasius and Apostles Creed, with LG 8, 14, 16 etc being visible cases. This changes the original understanding of the Creeds. He cannot hold the office of the Prefect of the DDF and could be automatically excommunicated. According to Canon Law, a Prefect of the DDF must be a Catholic and hold the de fide teachings of the Catholic Church.
There has been no denial from his office, or the Dicastery for Communications or the Holy See Press Office.
He does not state that he affirms the dogma EENS of the Council of Florence 1442.
He does not say that he affirms the Athanasius Creed as it was interpreted over the centuries.
He does not say that he affirms the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal, which has no exceptions in LG 14, 16. Instead he is phasing out the Latin Mass and the Roman Missal since their ecclesiology is in conflict with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally (LG 16 visible).
Not affirming the Creeds, in the original is an impediment to offering Holy Mass. It is a mortal sin of Faith. – Lionel Andrades