VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONAL AND DISHONEST MUST BE REJECTEDS BY ALL: THERE CAN BE DIALOGUE ONLY WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL AND ETHICAL. ( VIEWS ON X WITH MY COMMENTS)
14.02.2026VATICAN COUNCIL II IRRATIONAL AND DISHONEST MUST BE REJECTEDS BY ALL: THERE CAN BE DIALOGUE ONLY WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL AND ETHICAL.
VIEWS ON X WITH MY COMMENTS
Arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò
@CarloMVigano
The meeting between Tucho Fernaández and Fr. Davide Pagliarani highlights the paradox of the last sixty years: those declared to be outside the Catholic Church retain the Faith, and those considered in communion with the Apostolic See—to the point of holding its highest offices—are in fact heretics and apostates.
LiONEL. Yes with Vatican Council II irrational and liberal those who affirm Tradition are schismatic. But with Vatican Council II rational, those who hold the highest offices, are schismatic for not affirming the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc without exceptions. Since with the Council interpreted rationally, there no more are exceptions in the next of Vatican Council II, for the Athanasius Creed etc.
______________________
Arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò
@CarloMVigano
I cannot but note with sorrow and indignation the Statement released today by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, at the end of his meeting with Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. After decades of humiliation, inconclusive dialogues, partial concessions revoked by “Traditionis Custodes,” deafening silences regarding doctrinal and liturgical deviations widespread throughout the Church, and even more serious doctrinal and moral errors promoted by the Supreme Throne, Rome now claims to make the suspension of the episcopal consecrations announced by the SSPX for next July 1st a preliminary condition for dialogue. These consecrations are not acts of rebellion, but a supreme act of fidelity to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, which has been deprived for almost sixty years of Bishops who preach integral Doctrine and administer the Sacraments without any compromise with error. (Lionel: The SSPX like the Ecclesial Hierarchy at the Vatican interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and this is not the ‘integral doctrine’ of, for example, the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century. They affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.) The Dicastery’s Statement subtly repeats the same modernist scheme seen in 1988: it offers a “theological dialogue” on issues the Holy See has always refused to seriously address—religious freedom, destructive episcopal “collegiality,” pan-heretical ecumenism, the Nostra Ætate declaration that equates false religions with the one true Faith, and the Abu Dhabi Document—while threatening “schism” for the only gesture that is able to guarantee the certainty of Apostolic Succession. (Lionel: With Vatican Council II rational these are no more issues since the Council affirms the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Middle Ages) But who wields “schism” as a weapon today? Who excommunicated the Bishops consecrated in 1988 for defending Tradition and its beating heart, the Catholic Mass? Who excommunicated me and silenced me, while promoting declared heretics and covering up abuses of every kind? (Lionel: The bishops in 1988 were not told that with the Rational Premise Vatican Council II is aligned with the dogma EENS with no exceptions. Even today the SSPX bishops and Archbishop Vigano do not affirm EENS with no exceptions) Who forced the faithful to submit to an authority that has renounced immutable Catholic doctrine in the name of a “new humanism” and a “synodality” that is nothing other than the cancer of democracy applied to the Catholic Church in order to destroy from within its divine hierarchical Constitution and Petrine Primacy? The true schism is not that of those who consecrate Bishops to guard and transmit the Catholic Faith in its entirety, but rather the schism of the conciliar and synodal Hierarchy, which has denied Apostolic Tradition, replacing sound Doctrine with heretical ambiguities, true Catholic Worship with a Protestantized liturgy, and legitimate Authority with a totalitarian power exercised against the faithful who refuse to apostatize. (Lionel: The Synod bishops do not affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and neither the dogma EENS with no exceptions and so are politically correct. But the SSPX bishops and Archbishop are also in the same doctrinal position) The Society of Saint Pius X does not need the permission of those who have renounced the Faith to do what Providence asks of it: namely, to perpetuate the episcopal line faithful to Tradition. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acted not out of schism, but out of necessity – same state of necessity that persists today, aggravated by the systematic persecution of the Traditional Mass and the imposition of false doctrines that contradict the perennial Magisterium. (Lionel: Archbishop Lefebvre and the excommunicated bishops did not know about the Rational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. This changes the discussion on Vatican Council II today. )
Mark Lambert
@sitsio
A lot of people are saying that because some parts of the Church tolerate dissent without immediate sanctions (eg Germany), formal acts of canonical disobedience (like unauthorised consecrations) are less problematic. This conflates pastoral laxity with ecclesial legitimacy. The Church can fail in enforcing discipline without that meaning her doctrine is faulty or that serious canonical violations are permissible. Different issues engage different levels of Church structure (universal law on episcopal consecrations versus localised pastoral approaches in a synodal process). Despite all the rhetoric, there are good theological reasons why Rome rejects consecrations without mandate, namely the visible unity of the Church and hierarchical communion, which are not reducible to modernising impulses. (Lionel: There cannot be visible unity when Rome interprets Vatican Council II with an Irrational Premise. Rome uses the Rahner LG 16 visible heretical mistake to interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally and so dishonestly. This is also the political interpretation of Hans Urs Balthazar, Larry Chapp and Mark Lambert.
The SSPX now has an alternative. It is rational and traditional. This is the ethical choice available for all. There can then be unity in doctrine since the Council will no more be liberal but traditional. There will not be schism with the Magisterium of the Middle Ages. Presently Cardinal Fernandez is in schism with the Jesuits of the 16th century on EENS etc.
____________________
4.
Catholic Conclave
@cathconclave
Feb 12
To be ecclesiastically consistent, it is clearly time for Rome to break off dialogue with the Anglicans if they continue to consecrate Bishops without Rome's permission. #CatholicX
@pontifex
(Lionel: The Anglican Ordinariate accepts Vatican Council II irrational and so they are liberal, schismatic and heretical and are politically correct with the Left and the Vatican. It is the same with the Chinese bishops. It is the same with the FSSP.
The SSPX however does not accept the liberal conclusion of Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. They refused to accept it when Summorum Pontificum was issued.
This is a silver lining. Since Vatican Council II irrational and dishonest must be rejected by all.
The difference now, as compared to the time when Archbishop Lefebvre was alive, is that they are in a better doctrinal position with the discovery of Vatican Council II rational. The Council is traditional. So it is Cardinal Fernandez who will be in schism for not affirming Vatican Council II rational and the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms interpreted with the Rational Premise.
5,
Mike Lewis
@mfjlewis
My two step plan for SSPX members to come into full communion with the Catholic Church: 1) Leave the SSPX 2) Go to confession.
(Lionel: Their two step plan for you could be 1) Interpret Vatican Council II and the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally and so ethically and 2) recant the heretical and schismatic interpretation of the Creeds etc with the Irrational Premise. It is a scandal.
Go for Confession. Heresy and schism are mortal sins of faith, even if it is common in the Church)
The Catholic Herald
@CatholicHerald
"Should the Society proceed regardless with the consecrations “without the mandate of the Holy Father”, Fernández warned that such an action would “imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism)" Michael Haynes reports on Cardinal Fernández’s warning, signs of a potentially more flexible Vatican approach to Vatican II, and the wider pressures facing Leo XIV, from the Jimmy Lai case to Fulton Sheen’s beatification.
Lionel: The SSPX must announce that 1) they affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. So they meet the Vatican requirement to accept the Council. 2) They must ask Cardinal Fernandez to give up his heretical and schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II, irrational. It is a scandal. He needs to recant.3) They must ask him to affirm the Athanasius Creed etc, with no exceptions, since there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II. Canonically, if he cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed and the other Creeds in their original understanding he cannot be allowed to be a cardinal. A cardinal, canonically, is expected to affirm de fide teachings of the Catholic Church and publically to be a Catholic. - Lionel Andrades