FERNANDEZ AND PAGLIARANI AVOID DOCTRINAL TALKS WITH LG 16 HYPOTHETICAL AND INVISIBLE : VATICAN COUNCIL …

FERNANDEZ AND PAGLIARANI AVOID DOCTRINAL TALKS WITH LG 16 HYPOTHETICAL AND INVISIBLE : VATICAN COUNCIL II WOULD BE ALIGNED WITH FEENEYITE EENS

21.02.2026
· FERNANDEZ AND PAGLIARANI AVOID DOCTRINAL TALKS WITH LG 16 HYPOTHETICAL AND INVISIBLE : VATICAN COUNCIL II WOULD BE ALIGNED WITH FEENEYITE EENS

· The SSPX doctrinally, is politically correct and interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally to avoid legal attacks from the Left.

· Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally have become politically incorrect for the Vatican, the Left and the SSPX.

· LG 16 - invisible and hypothetical is a new Feeneyite theological axis in the Catholic Church as opposed to the Pope Leo, SSPX, Cushingite theological pole.

· Cardinal Fernandez is in no doctrinal position to issue an excommunication and neither is the SSPX to consecrate new bishops. They do not use the Rational Premise. Instead with the Irrational Premise they remain in schism.

It was a week yesterday since I met Paulo Ruffini, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Communications, at the Holy See Press Office. Yesterday I was unable to meet the Director of the Press Office. They have not clarified if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case for Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez. Meanwhile Fr. Davide Pagliarani has called off talks , while also not admitting that LG 16 is an invisible case and so the SSPX has to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , with no known exceptions in 1965-2026.Neither does Fernandez or Pagliarani affirm EENS with no exceptions. Both of them are approved by the political Left.
With LG 8, 14, 16 invisible and hypothetical, every bishop would have to affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed with no known exceptions. Presently the SSPX bishops, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Pope Leo and the popes from Paul VI, are not doing this. They choose the irrational option.
Both groups, traditionalists and liberals, want to politically correct with a Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally. Then they say that we do not have doctrinal

unity.

Over the last 15 years, neither of the two groups responded to the posts on my blog Eucharist and Mission (Lionel’s blog). Since they cannot discuss the Catholic faith because of their political interpretation of Vatican Council II. At the SSPX Centers in Rome, the priest is unable to speak frankly on Vatican Council II. Since their doctrinal position is political.
On February 13, I asked Paulo Ruffini, only one question. The answer is obvious. Even a school boy would be able to answer it and it is at the heart of the doctrinal disunity in the Church. I asked him: Does Lumen Gentium 16, being saved in invincible ignorance, with a good conscience, refer to a physically visible or invisible case in 2026?
He would not comment and neither has he responded to posts on X and Gloria TV asking if LG 16 is visible for Cardinal Fernandez in 2026.
It is amid such secrecy that Pope Leo and Card. Fernandez had invited the SSPX for doctrinal talks.

When LG 16 is hypothetical and invisible only, then Vatican Council II becomes ecclesiocentric. There are no exceptions for AG 7 .It means every bishop can no more be liberal. The Council is no more liberal. The Council is no more liberal without changing the text as Bishop Athanasius Schneider has suggested. When the Council is traditional with AG 7 aligned with EENS and LG 16 not being an exception for either- AG 7 or EENS- then once again in the history of the Catholic Church every bishop has to be traditional. So the bishops ordained by Pope Leo and the SSPX would be traditionalist. The Dicastry for Bishops, Vatican, can only choose traditional bishops who affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.
If cardinals Tobin, Roche and Cupich cannot do this, canonically, they are in public schism and cannot hold their office.
But Cardinal Fernandez and Fr. Pagliarani have refused to interpret LG 16 as being hypothetical and invisible and so align Vatican Council II with the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed, with no known exceptions. They have not even commented upon this.
They are not choosing the Rational Premise ( invisible cases are invisible, LG 16 is an invisible case in 2026) to interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, as did the Magisterium over the centuries before the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. So their interpretation of Vatican Council II remains, schismatic, nontraditional and dishonest. There is an honest alternative.
They have chosen political correctness and convenience and avoided suffering.
- Lionel Andrades