WE CAN INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IN THE FIRST POLE LIKE POPE LEO, THE SECOND POLE LIKE BISHOP …

WE CAN INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IN THE FIRST POLE LIKE POPE LEO, THE SECOND POLE LIKE BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY AND THE THIRD POLE LIKE CARDINAL GERHARDT MULLER

13.11.2025
WE CAN INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II IN THE FIRST POLE LIKE POPE LEO, THE SECOND POLE LIKE BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY AND THE THIRD POLE LIKE CARDINAL GERHARDT MULLER.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate priests at Boccea, Rome, where I lived for several years, would joke about ‘the third pole’. Once they even got a visiting bishop at their church, Santa Maria di Nazareth, to mention it in his homily.
In the First Pole are the liberals, in the Second Pole the Lefebvrists and the Third Pole, the LG 16-invisible group. The First and Second Pole are Cushingites.The Third Pole is Feeneyite.It is not schismatic. It has a continuity with the Apostles and the Church Fathers. Vatican Council II emerges ecclesiocentric with Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) while LG 8,14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are invisible cases. So they are not practical exceptions for AG 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This is the Third Pole. In this group we affirm Tradition and Vatican Council II, rational.
A. We are not liberals who reject Tradition and Vatican Council II, rational and affirm Vatican Council II, irrational.
B. Neither are we Traditionalists who affirm Tradition in general, reject Vatican Council II irrational and do not know about Vatican Council II, rational.
C. So in the Third Pole we interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally.So there is a continuity with all the catechisms , interpreted rationally. We can affirm the Catechism of Pope John Paul II and that of Pope Pius X.The liberals and traditionalists cannot do this. There is no contradiction in the Third Pole but there would be a contradiction in the First and Second Pole. There has to be a contradiction, since the Council interpreted irrationally would produce exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return etc.

Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and so is in harmony with the Feeneyite Roman Missal in the Third Pole. The Council is ecclesiocentric and so is the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
This is the Third Pole. There is no schism with Tradition.Vatican Council II , rational, supports the ecclesiology of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic Guzman and St. Teresa of the Child Jesus.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA would be in the Third Pole today. They interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the baptism of desire, the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston ( whose second half does not contradict the first half), and EENS, rationally.
Amy Welborn would be in the First Pole and Peter Kwasniewski in the Second Pole while Sister Maria Philomena micm, Director of the St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom, St. Benedict Center, NH, would be in the Third Pole.
I cannot imagine John Allen, Michael Sean Winters, Massimo Faggioli and Alberto Melloni interpreting Vatican Council II in the Third Pole.
But in the recent interview of Cardinal Gerhardt Muller by Bishop Robert Barron the German cardinal has moved from the First Pole to the Third Pole, the LG 16-invisible group. So he could say that Vatican Council II is aligned with St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was in the Third Pole. For him ‘the man in the forest in ignorance’, who was to be saved when a preacher was sent to him, was a hypothetical case. It did not contradict Aquinas’ ecclesiocentrism.
The popes, saints and martyrs were in the Third Pole when they interpreted invisible cases of the baptism of desire rationally. The baptism of desire was Feeneyite and not Cushingite for them. So EENS was Feeneyite and never Cushingite for them.

In the Third Pole the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms are interpreted rationally when there is a reference to the baptism of desire.
But in the First and Second Pole they are interpreted irrationally and so there are ‘exceptions’ and schism with Tradition in general.
Now if Pope Leo chooses to interpret Vatican Council II rationally the conclusion will be traditional.He will have moved from the First Pole to the Third Pole. The Church too will have moved with him. Even the sedevacantists and the SSPX in the Second Pole, morally, would have to choose the Third Pole. Rome will have come back to the Catholic Faith as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wanted. So we can interpret Vatican Council II in the First Pole like Pope Leo, the Second Pole like Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Third Pole like Cardinal Gerhardt Muller.-Lionel Andrades