SSPX MUST MEET POPE LEO AFTER HE INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY AND APOLOGISES FOR THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE
26.01.2026SSPX MUST MEET POPE LEO AFTER HE INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY AND APOLOGISES FOR THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE
The National Catholic Reporter and the Society of St. Pius X are in the same doctrinal boat, when they choose the Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. They will be in unity and harmony with the ‘the strict interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesium nulla salus.
When Pope Leo interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise he is a rad trad on extra ecclesiam nulla salus too. It would be true for Pope Leo and Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. It would be true for Fr. John Berg, the Superior General of the FSSP.
So before a meeting with the pope, Fr. Davide Pagliarani must ask how we can have a pope who interprets Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally. There is no other option for him but the rational one.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not told that the Council was traditionalist. It was Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar, Kung, Lehmann, Lubac, Congar, Guardini and others who interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and accepted the nontraditional conclusion, which were in schism and should have been excommunicated.
It is now clear. Fr. Karl Rahner made a mistake in the book The Christian of the Future (1967.Herder and Herder, New York). On pp.94 and 95 he projects being saved in invincible ignorance ( Lumen Gentiun 16) as being an explicit and known example of salvation outside the Catholic Church. He then infers that LG 16 is an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So EENS has become obsolete for him (pp.82-85).
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated because he did not accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. But also because Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, did not tell him about Vatican Council II, rational, the Council interpreted with LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refers to only hypothetical cases.
The SSPX must seek a meeting with the pope only after he interprets Vatican Council II rationally and ethically. He must apologize for the Church not telling Archbishop Lefebvre the truth about Vatican Council II.
When the pope interpret Vatican Council II without the the Rahner LG 16 visible error he ends his schism with the Apostles, Church Fathers and the popes of the Middle Ages.
1. 1. The pope has not announced that if Archbishop Lefebvre and the excommunicated SSPX bishops interpreted Vatican Council II with Ad Gentes 7 in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and when LG 16 was not an explicit exception for EENS, the Council would in general be in harmony with Tradition.
2. 2. Also during the SSPX –Vatican Council II talks Pope Benedict did not announce that without the Rahner LG 16 visible mistake, Vatican Council II is in harmony with the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. There is no rupture with Tradition. This point was not clarified by Pope Leo during his meeting with Fr. John Berg, the SSPX Superior General. The Council interpreted rationally is ecclesiocentric (AG 7 has no exception in Lumen Gentium etc) and so is traditional.
3. 3.Also when Summorum Pontificum was issued the SSPX was expected to accept Vatican Council II irrational, with the LG 16 mistake. Now it should be clear that the traditionalists do not have to accept the Council interpreted irrationally. There is a rational option which is tradition.
4. 4. The National Catholic Reporter and the Society of St. Pius X are in the same doctrinal boat, when they choose the Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. They will be in unity and harmony with the ‘the strict interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesium nulla salus , the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, all with no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. No liberal - traditionalist division will exist anymore.
The National Catholic Reporter correspondents and the SSPX and sedevacantist bishops, Sanborn, Pivarunas and others, will have the same interpretation and understanding of Vatican Council II. They will return to the old theology.
5. 5. When Pope Leo interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise he is a rad trad on extra ecclesiam nulla salus too. It would be true for Pope Leo and Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. It would be true for Fr. John Berg, the Superior General of the FSSP, who recently met Pope Leo.
The division came into the Church with liberalism and liberalism was produced with the False Premise and Inference. It created an EENS with exceptions.
So there should not be a condition that only if the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II irrationally and the accompanying reforms over the last 60-plus years, only then they can meet the pope.
6. 6.The Council is traditional, with the Rational Premise, Rational Inference and orthodox conclusion
There can no more be a New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelization and New Canon Law etc. We are restricted by Vatican Council II. The Council limits us to the old theology and ecclesiology.
7. 7. So before a meeting with the pope, Fr. Davide Pagliarani must ask how we can have a pope who interprets Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally. There is no other option for him but the rational one.
Pope Leo must dialogue with Fr. Pagliarani and the sedevacantist bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas and offer to interpret Vatican Council II rationally with an ecclesiocentric conclusion.
The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the pope but does not accept the non traditional conclusion. They reject the schismatic conclusion. We now know that Tradition is in harmony with Vatican Council II, rational.
8. 8.Pope Leo kept all this a secret from Fr. John Berg, the Superior General of the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter), whom he met the other day. The original members of the FSSP had their religious formation with the SSPX... Fr. Pagliarani must ask Pope Leo to clarify this point before a meeting.
9.
9.Pope Leo gave a catechesis on Vatican Council II this month during the Consistory and did not announce that LG 16 referred to a theoretical case. It was only hypothetical. So with Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation), VC II is aligned with Tradition (EENS etc) and LG 16 is not an explicit exception in the present time. An invisible case cannot be an exception.
Also hypothetical cases of LG 8, 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, are not exceptions for the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the 16th century.VC 2 is ecclesiocentric and traditional.
10. 10. VCII SUPPORTS THE SSPX
The Council supports the SSPX and sedevacantists MHT, CMRI, MHFM and not cardinal Koch on the New Ecumenism, Cardinal Tagle on the New Evangelization and Cardinal Roche on the New Missal which does not say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. With the Rational Premise the Council would support the SSPX and not Pope Leo, until he chooses to interpret Vatican Council II rationally.
The SSPX must now ask why they ‘out’ are and the liberal cardinals and bishops ‘in’ when the Council is traditional without Rahnerian theology.
11. 11.Over the last 60-plus years traditionalists have been excommunicated in the name of Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not told that the Council was traditionalist. It was Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar, Kung, Lehmann, Lubac, Congar, Guardini and others who interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and accepted the nontraditional conclusion, which were in schism and should have been excommunicated.
It is Cardinal Walter Kasper who should be excommunicated for not interpreting Vatican Council II.
12.
12. REVIEW EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE
It is now clear. Fr. Karl Rahner made a mistake in the book The Christian of the Future (1967.Herder and Herder, New York). On pp.94 and 95 he projects being saved in invincible ignorance ( Lumen Gentiun 16) as being an explicit and known example of salvation outside the Catholic Church. He then infers that LG 16 is an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So EENS has become obsolete for him (pp.82-85).
In this book made up of talks he gave in Germany in 1965 he criticizes the understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ‘in a very exclusive and permissive way’… So for him there is a new understanding of mission- that of the anonymous Christian, since the dogma EENS has been made obsolete with alleged visible cases of Lumen Gentium 16.They had to be visible, since invisible people in 1965-1967 could not be objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict maintained the lie in Karl Rahner’s book The Christian of the Future. He supported the New Theology based upon implicit cases of the baptism of desire being explicit exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Council of Trent. Unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) were projected as known exceptions for Augustine and Aquinas on outside the Church there is no salvation. Pope Leo must be asked why the SSPX must interpret Vatican Council II with the Rahner LG 16 visible mistake.
13. 13. RATZINGER WAS HERETICAL AND SCHISMATIC
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated because he did not accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. But also because Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, did not tell him about Vatican Council II, rational, the Council interpreted with LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refers to only hypothetical cases. So Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation; and which is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church there is no salvation, is aligned with the dogma EENS of the Council of Florence 1442, while LG , 1,14, 16 etc are not objective exceptions
So today Vatican Council II would have a continuity with the dogma EENS, with no known exceptions, the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions, an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus with no known exceptions and no exceptions for the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the Latin Mass.
Vatican Council II would be aligned with all the Catechisms and the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16the century on EENS.
This was not told to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Instead he was excommunicated.
1. 14. The liberal traditionalists division in the Church ends when the Council is no more liberal. Also the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in harmony with all the old catechisms. It means visitations, books and papal documents must be issued based upon Vatican Council II interpreted only rationally.
- Lionel Andrades