BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II LIKE ARCHBISHOP ANIBALE BUGNINI
29.11.2025The language for discussing Vatican Council II and the liturgy has changed .The Novus Ordo Mass has the same exclusivist ecclesiology as the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
For me the ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo Mass is the same as the Latin Mass even though the New Missal is Cushingite ( the premise is invisible people are visible) and the Old Missal is Feeneyite ( the premise is invisible people are just invisible in our human reality). I interpret all Church Documents rationally, with Feeneyism ( not to be confused with Wikipedia’s concept of Feeneyism).
Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthazar and Lefebvre were Cushingites. Was Fr. Leonard Feeney also Cushingite in his interpretation of Vatican Council II? We don’t know. But he did not affirm Vatican Council II rational in public and neither did Catherine Clark Goddard and Brother Francis Maluf micm.
In 2005 it was clear that the Society of St. Pius X and the St. Benedict Centers in the USA were interpreting Vatican Council II only irrationally.
In the diocese of Charlotte, Knoxville, USA, the SSPX will have a new chapel it is reported. But at the Latin Mass the SSPX interprets Vatican Council II and all the catechisms irrationally. There is no comment or denial from them on this point.
For them the Athanasius Creed has exceptions and for me it does not have exceptions.
For the SSPX Vatican Council II has exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and for me it does not have exceptions.
For them the baptism of desire refers to a visible case - this is what they imply when they say there are exceptions for EENS. For me the baptism of desire is an invisible case always. So it is never an exception for EENS. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office ( CDF) made a public mistake.
Before 1949 Tradition was Feeneyite. Augustine and Aquinas were Feeneyite since being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire referred to hypothetical cases always. They were invisible cases. This was common sense.
Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX however interpret invisible cases of Unitatis Redintigratio 3, the Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, as an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX). So he supports the irrational philosophy and theology, the Cushingite theology, upon which is based the New Ecumenism.
Then Bishop Fellay criticizes the New Ecumenism of the liberals.
Based upon the false interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Fellay is based the new theology of the Synods.
Bishop Bernard Fellay interprets Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents like Archbishop Anibale Bugnini. I avoid this mistake.
I have been saying the same thing over the years but the SSPX will not get into specifics. They will say that ‘we are following Tradition. Tradition cannot be wrong’.But they follow the Cushingite Tradition like the liberals and the sedevacantists.
After some 60 plus years, the language for discussing Vatican Council II has changed. The conclusions are different.
1.We no more have a division between the SSPX and the SBC and the traditionalists and the liberals, since the Council, is no more liberal.
We have identified the fundamental cause; what creates something foreign to come into the Church.
2. Since Vatican Council II is no more liberal we are back to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at every liturgy and rite.
3. The Decree on Ecumenism (UR) in Vatican Council II, does not contain a single exception for the dogma EENS.
4. How could Pope Francis issue Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custode and Fiducia Supplicans? Where was the theology? The Council can morally only be interpreted rationally and so traditionally.
5. How could the SSPX interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition ?
We know more can blame Bugnini. The SSPX and the pope simply have to interpret the baptism of desire rationally, then interpret LG 8, 14,. 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc rationally, as being only hypothetical cases and the Church returns to Tradition. We avoid the mistake in the 1949 LOHO and that of Pope Paul VI in 1965. There no more are exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, an ecumenism of return to the Church, the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal, traditional mission which is Christocentric and also Ecclesiocentric etc.
-Lionel Andrades