Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. This is heresy.

Lumen Gentium 8 is always invisible.

Lumen Gentium 16 always refers to an invisible person.

Unitatis Redintigratio 3 always refers to an invisible person.

Gaudium et Specs in its entire text always refers to an unknown person.

Nostra Aetate 2 always refers to a hypothetical case.

Lumen Gentium 14 refers to an uknown case of the catechumen who dies before receiving the baptism of water and is saved.

So Vatican Council II no where contradicts the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return, 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athansius Creed or the Nicene and Apostles Creed. The Council supports Tradition.

But for Pope Paul VI, the Council was a rupture with de fide teachings of the Church. This is heresy. Did Pope Paul VI have a right to be a pope ? Could a pope in heresy still be a pope?

For all the cardinals Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition on de fide teachings.Could a cardinal in heresy remain a cardinal according to Canon Law ?

Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. This is heresy.

A pope in heresy ceases to be the pope according to St.Robert Bellarmine we are told by sedevacantists who also interpret the Council irrationally and in heresy.

So was the Seat of St.Peter vacant because of a general innocent ignorance? No, not for me.

Should not the popes and the present cardinals and bishops correct the error and end the confusion?

They could announce that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.

It does not contradict exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. It does not contradict an ecumenism of return.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949, they could announce, which Fr. Karl Rahner sj, placed in the Denzinger has an objective and factual error.-Lionel Andrades