PENDING CANONICAL ISSUES 4: BISHOP FRANCOIS TOUVET AT FREJUF-TOULON, FRANCE IS IRRATIONAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II, THE CREEDS AND CATECHISMS : SCHISM
PENDING CANONICAL ISSUES 4: BISHOP FRANCOIS TOUVET AT FREJUF-TOULON, FRANCE IS IRRATIONAL ON VATICAN COUNCIL II, THE CREEDS AND CATECHISMS : SCHISM
Bishop François Touvet became bishop of Toulon Frejuf in 2025 and replaced Bishop Dominique Rey. He interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and unethically. This is a disqualification for a bishop. Also the Visitation of Bishop Rey was not apostolic since only Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is apostolic and magisterial.This was not the doctrinal position of the ecclesiastic visitation.
1. John Courtney Murray interpreted Vatican Council II schismatically. He was irrational. It is the same with the bishop of Frejuf Toulon. He is schismatic on the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, when he interprets them with a False Premise.
For me Dignitatis Humanae says: First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you" (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.
2. Invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so are not explicit exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed for me. Bishop François Touvet cannot say the same.For him the Athanasius Creed for example has exceptions in Vatican Council II and so he does not affirm that Creed, in the original.
2. Vatican Council II (AG 7) is ecclesiocentric with Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) while hypothetical cases of LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS. This is not the doctrinal position of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, the French Bishops Conference and Bishop Francois Touvet.
3.. So when Religious Liberty is interpreted as a break with the dogma EENS, it is schism with the Magisterium over the centuries. This was not an issue for example during the time of the Papal States in Europe since they interpreted all Magisterial Documents only rationally. For me the Council does not contradict Religious Liberty as it was interpreted during the time of the Papal States in Europe. This is not the understanding of Religious Liberty in France, when Vatican Council II is interpreted only irrationally.
4.. When invisible cases of LG 16 etc are projected as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS, it is irrational and dishonest. Bishop Touvet is irrational and dishonest.
5. When Vatican Council II is projected as rupture with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Latin Mass and the dogma EENS, it is schism. The bishop at Frejuf Toulon is in schism.
6. When what is invisible is considered visible, example LG 16, I call it Cushingism. When what is invisible is seen as just being invisible, example, LG 16, I call it Feeneyism. We can interpret LG 8, 14 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc with Feeneyism and Cushingism and the conclusion of course will be different.
Similarly we can interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, when there is a reference to LG 16 (invincible ignorance) etc with Feeneyism or Cushingism. So Tradition for the St. Benedict Center in New Hamsphire, USA is Feeneyite and for the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei communities Cushingite. Cushingite Tradition is schism. The bishop who offers Mass in French in Frejuf Toulon is also a Cushingite.
7. Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans and Traditionis Custode were based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. They are Cushingite. They are accepted by Bishop Touvet. Also the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston is heretical and schismatic. It is accepted by the Cushingite Bishop Touvet.
8.Also books in general on Vatican Council II are Cushingite.So we are not obliged to accept them as does the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the French Bishops Conference and Bishop Touvet. Pope Pius X was Feeneyite on Tradition but Pope Pius XII ( 1949 LOHO), Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops chose irrational and schismatic Cushingism to interpret Church Documents ( Vatican Council II, baptism of desire, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Athanasius Creed etc).We have a rational, traditional and non schismatic option.
This is not known to Bishop Touvet or Dom Alcuin Reid in this diocese.
9. There is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7. UR 3 refers to a hypothetical case. We do not know anyone for example who is saved this year or the last, in imperfect communion with the Church or where the Catholic Church subsists outside its visible boundaries (LG 8).So there is no theological support in Vatican Council II for the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Theology, New Evangelization and New Canon Law. So Bishop Touvet is irrational and dishonest.
Canon Law:
The bishop in the diocese of Toulon Frejuf France, like Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez at the Vatican, interprets Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally and not rationally. He does the same for other Magisterial Documents.
Secular Law:
Implicit cases are being confused as being explicit exceptions for the de fide teachings of the Catholic Church and so people think that Vatican Council II is liberal and schismatic. The people in France are not informed about the rational and unethical interpretation of Vatican Council II etc.
VISITATION BY BISHOP TOULET
10. There was a Visitation of the diocese of Frijof-Toulon, France, and also the FSSP by ecclesiastics who interpret Vatican Council II by confusing implicit cases as being explicit exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc. This was not apostolic. It was schismatic. The visiting ecclesiastics supported the hermeneutic of discontinuity with de fide teachings of the Catholic Church. For them, LG 16 was an exception for EENS. This was not legally contested by Bishop Dominic Rey at that time and neither Dom Alcuin Reid in that diocese today. Bishop Dominic Rey interprets Vatican Council II irrationally in the Archdiocese of Paris, as does the archbishop there. It is reported that Bishop Francois Touvet was part of the visitation of the diocese and power in the diocese, was handed over to him by Pope France.
Bishop Francois Touvet's work for the Church is appreciated. Here I have restricted myself to only doctrine. It is hoped that he makes the correction.
This is a canonical issue. Since the bishop must affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church to remain in his office. He has to interpret the Creeds in their original understanding.Otherwise it will be first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths ( Ad Teundem Fidem of Pope John Paul II.
–Lionel Andrades
23.03.2026
PENDING CANONICAL ISSUES – 4
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith / Ecclesia Dei must begin a dialogue with the sedevacantists
PENDING CANONICAL ISSUES – 4 The Dicastery for …
François Touvet - Wikipedia