I have been asked on a website (Gloria.TV) if the SSPX should enter the Church with full canonical status by accepting Vatican Council II.
I think that the SSPX should ‘enter the Church’ after the following clarifications.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
1. The Jewish Left liberal interpretation.
2. The interpretation in accord with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) should reject the first interpretation of Vatican Council II and accept the second one.
The SSPX should clarify that we do not know any case of a non Catholic in 2011-2012 who is saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, the seeds of the Word etc. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There are no explicit exceptions and the Church has not retracted this dogma which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible ‘statement (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
The SSPX agrees that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. The SSPX accepts this possibility.
Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also menionted this possibility the SSPX can endorse implicit baptism of desire and implicit invincible ignorance, known only to God, along with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is no text in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the exclusive interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .
Since there is exclusive salvation in the only the Catholic Church (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) and this teaching is not contradicted by LG 16 etc, the SSPX maintains its position on ecumenism, other religions and dialogue. It is in agreement also with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
So the SSPX is affirming Vatican Council II in accord with Tradition and the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma.
(Note: The Letter does not state that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. It mentions disobedience. The Church lifted the excommunication without him having to recant. The Letter mentions ‘the dogma’. The dogma indicates all non Catholics need to enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell (Cantate Domino).So the Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney here.)
If the cardinals who issued the Letter assumed that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us then it was an objective error on their part. We don’t know these cases.
1.The SSPX should announce that they would accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and with reference texts from Vatican Council lI. They reject the liberal version of Vatican Council which has no supportive texts, since we do not know cases saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word etc.
2. Since Vatican Council II does not mention any explicitly known exceptions to the defined dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council, the exclusive salvation interpretation of the dogma still stands. So the SSPX does not have to change its traditional position on ecumenism, other religions, inter religious dialogue, religious liberty.
Once these two points are clarified other aspects of Vatican Council II can be interpreted according to Tradition and as Pope Benedict XVI has said, that the Council is not a break from tradition but a continuity.-Lionel Andrades