THE POPE AND CARDINALS ARE IN HERESY AND SCHISM. PROVE ME WRONG. 25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (UPDATED)
04.10.2025 Feast of St. Francis of Assisi. He held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.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 Viagno 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 Concil 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, 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 any more?
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.- Lionel Andrades