Is Viganò in Schism, or is Pope Francis in Schism?

Note that Dr. Edmund Mazza and Kennedy Hall interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally like Pope Francis, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and bishops Bernard Fellay and Richard Williamson. For them 'the red is an exception for the blue'. For me, 'the red is not an exception for the blue'. When the Council is interpreted irrationally and the expected outcome must be heresy and schism.The same mistake is made by the sedevacantists bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas.This is a common erorr in the books published by Sophia and the Angelus Press.

DECEPTION

Interesting. Since Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, pulled up Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano for not accepting Vatican Council II with Lumen Gentium 16 etc, not being explicit exceptions for Tradition. He had to accept Lumen Gentium 16 etc, as does the cardinal, i.e. they are allegedly explicit, seen and personally known examples of salvation outside the Church in 2024.This is irrational but only with this irrationality can Tradition be made obsolete. Only in this deceptive way the former nuncio to the USA could be faulted at the recent trial for schism.

If the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, members interpreted Vatican Council II rationally like me, they would be indirectly affirming the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. For me these Church Documents have no ‘exceptions’.

The DCF members would then be affirming Tradition like Archbishop Carlo Vigano and they could be liable for excommunication, according to the present irrational philosophy ( invisible people are visible) and theology ( outside the Church there is known salvation) of the DCF.

But for Cardinal Fernandez to excommunicate, defame and calumniate Archbishop Vigano officially, based upon an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II could be a legal issue. 

Presently the Prefect of the DCF does not affirm the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition since for him there are alleged ‘objective exceptions’ in Vatican Council II. This is a violation of Church law. Affirming Church teachings is obligatory for a cardinal.He is rejecting de fide teachings in the name of an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. So he is also rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally and which is the only moral option he has.

Cardinal Fernandez has used a deceptive and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II at the schism-trial, demanding  that the archbishop accept it and suggesting that it is magisterial.

Only a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II could be Magisterial.

He has not made this known publically. This becomes a secular, ethical issue.

In 2003, when I spoke to Fr. Sebastian Vazhakhala m.c he was not willing to affirm the dogma EENS since Lumen Gentium 16 was an exception for him. In other words, it referred to a visible and known case in our reality. Now he knows that Lumen Gentium 16 is an invisible case and so is not an exception for Tradition. LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases for him. So now he is saying the same thing as me.

So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS i.e. the EENS of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. This has to be acknowledged publically by Cardinal Fernandez and the DCF. – Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/09/when-priest-says-that-lumen-gentium-16.html