Another John Henry Westen, Joseph Shaw and Roberto dei Mattei petition is needed

Another John Henry Westen, Joseph Shaw and Roberto dei Mattei petition is needed. Why don’t they issue a pro-Vigano petition? The  signatories must be clear. They only interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all other catechisms, with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’, with the rational premise (invisible people are invisible).They avoid the present common irrational premise (invisible  people are visible, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible person in 2024). During the alleged schism -trial recently, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the FaithDCF) Vatican chose the irrational premise. This is unethical. For them ‘the red is an exception for the blue’. Lumen Gentium 8,14,15,16 etc refer to physically visible people. They are  examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times. So there has to be a rupture with the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Exceptions are produced out of nowhere.

Shaw, Westen and Mattei have signed so many petitions. It has to be shown concretely now how Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez  interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally.The result has to be heresy. Their conclusion is schismatic. It is a liberal break  with the Magisterium before 1949.They interpret Vatican Council II with the red hypothetical passages being practical exceptions for the blue orthodox passages. I avoid this mistake. There are also now many other Catholics who avoid this error, like me. 

The signatories must mention that they interpret Vatican Council II rationally like me and not like Pope Francis, the DCF and the Doctrine Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The petition/statement must show the graphics/icons of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.The signatories must affirm that they choose common sense. For them ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’.

Then they must appeal to Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernandez,the bishops’ conferences and the College of Cardinals to re-interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms of the Catholic Church rationally, only. There is no choice.They would be ethical.The Church would return to Tradition. ‘Rome would come back to the Faith’. The DCF would in public support the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Vatican Council II would emerge traditional. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1442) would be in harmony with Vatican Council II (rational) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rational).Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II ( irrational).Archbishop Vigano today is not obliged to accept Vatican Council II, irrationally like the DCF.

The petition could state, ‘We the undersigned wish to state that we interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally. The passages underscored in red refer to hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. They are not practical exceptions for the  orthodox passages marked in blue. Neither are they exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology of  the Catholic Church.

We affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We interpret them rationally in harmony with Tradition, as do the religious community the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, NH, USA.'

This is one option. The petition could also simply present the graphics ( for which permission has been granted by me) and mention that the signatories accept Vatican Council II  and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted only rationally, with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’. Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not contradict the orthodox passages support the ecclesiocentric salvation and the need for the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

With this basic format, another option is to call for the re-trial of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, with all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, and Catechisms) interpreted only rationally. During the trial they were interpreted irrationally by all concerned. So the DCF did not have a continuation with the pre-1949 ,Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.- Lionel Andrades