Monday, July 1, 2013

The SSPX Declaration would take on a new meaning if the three bishops would clarify the terms implicit-explicit, dejure-defacto, invisible-visible

 
The SSPX Declaration would take on a new meaning if the three bishops would clarify the following.
 
1.
Do they accept in principle a baptism of desire ? The possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire is accepted in principle.
 
2.
Do they accept in fact, defacto a baptism of desire ? Do they know defacto cases, in reality saved with the baptism of desire?
 
 
1.
 Do they accept in principle that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance ? The possibility of a person being saved in invincible ignorance is accepted in principle.
 
2.
Do they accept in fact, defacto  that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance  ? They  know defacto cases, in reality saved  in invincible ignorance?
 
 

So  when the SSPX Declaration states that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions, do they refer to 1 or 2.
 
1. 
Vatican Council II in theory, in principle mentions invincible ignorance (LG 16), a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctification and grace (LG 8), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), good and hold things in other religions leading to salvation (NA 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) ? They accept the possibility of a person being saved as such.
 
Or
 
2.
Vatican Council II defacto, in fact, explicitly, in practise refers to cases saved in  invincible ignorance (LG 16), a good conscience(LG 16), elements of sanctification and grace (LG 8), imperfect communion with the  Church (UR 3), good and hold things in other religions leading to salvation (NA 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) ? They accept that these are defacto,  known cases. They are known by name.
 
If they are referring to N.1 then Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions, since there are  no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The references are to in principle cases. They are implicit and known only to God. They are invisible for us.
 If they are referring to N.2 then the SSPX  bishops are irrational. Defacto, in real life we do not know any of these cases. Neither does Vatican Council II make this irrational claim of being able to see the dead now saved in Heaven.The Council does not claim that the dead are physically visible to us for them to be exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions.-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 

 
 

The SSPX Declaration brings us back to the irrational question"Do you accept the baptism of desire as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?"

SSPX priests,supporters and websites ask if one accepts the baptism of desire or rejects it. This is a loaded question. It implies we can actually know of such a case and so accept or reject it.
"Are you a traditionalist who rejects the baptism of desire or are you a liberal who accepts the baptism of desire?". 
This is nonsense. We cannot know of any case to accept or reject  it.
 
However the SSPX Declaration  indicates that they can 'accept' the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and so they have rejected Vatican Council II. Since for them invincible ignorance (LG 16) is known and so is an exception to the traditional teaching on other religions.It is an exception for the SSPX  so all need not convert into the Church in 2013 , all need not be visible members of the Church to avoid Hell.
This confusion results since the SSPX does not make the defacto-dejure distinction. They do not qualify their statements with terms like explicit-implicit, in practise-in theory, visible-invisible.
 
 An SSPX website says that the Holy Office (CDF, Vatican) 'condemned' Fr.Leonard Feeney ( for allegedly not  accepting the baptism of desire as a known exception to the dogma?). So for the SSPX the baptism of desire is a defacto exception to the dogma. The baptism of desire refers to visible cases which are an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. For the SSPX , Fr.Leonard Feeney did not know that there known exceptions.This was also the position of the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing.The baptism of desire was explicit for him as if he could name cases.
 
The SSPX Declaration brings us back to the irrational question"Do you accept the baptism of desire as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?"
 
The SSPX bishops have all these years being saying "Yes". So for them, there are visible, known, explicit, defacto exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma and the traditional teaching on other religions.
-Lionel Andrades
 

SSPX DECLARATION IMPLIES POPE PIUS XII MADE A MISTAKE

If Vatican Council II is a break with the past regarding other religions, according to the SSPX Declaration, then Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation; the break with the past,  then the popes and Councils of the past made a mistake. They did not know this ?!
 
It means Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis was saying there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance or implicit desire and there actually are these cases ; we know them,we can name them and - so they are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation.The pope knew this?
Since the SSPX bishops can also name these cases, whom they know are personal exceptions to the dogma on salvation ( and the traditional teaching on other religions) and since these cases are mentioned in Vatican Council II (are they?) for them,-they reject Vatican Council II.They reject the Council because they can see the deceased mentioned in Vatican Council II who are exceptions to Tradition!?!
So the SSPX's bishops recent Declaration rejecting Vatican Council II is implying that Pope Pius XII and other popes , made a mistake. The popes were saying there were exceptions,according to SSPX recent Declaration and  over many years on the SSPX websites.So the popes could see the dead; the dead in Heaven or on earth?
May be the SSPX bishops do not realize it but this Declaration implies that Pope Pius XII did not know that there cannot be exceptions to the dogma. For the SSPX , Pope Pius XII did not realize that we cannot see the dead-saved, for them to be exceptions to Tradition.Or if he was saying there are exceptions, he was implying that he and others could see the deceased.Objectively this is not possible but this is what the SSPX Declaration implies.
 
When there are no known cases of the 'deceased on earth' saved with the baptism of desire , can these cases be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church to avoid Hell? (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
The SSPX bishops have made an objective mistake.When I say this I am not using the apologetics of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA. I am not saying like Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities that 'there is no baptism of desire'. I am saying there is no known baptism of desire.There is no physically visible case.
There is no physically visible case of salvation for us,including those whom the Church has declared saints.We accept the saints in faith. Physically we cannot see them.Personally we cannot meet them on earth.
 
Since we physically cannot see the dead how can they be exceptions in 2013 to all needing to convert visibly into the Church (with faith and baptism, AG 7) for salvation.
 
So if the SSPX bishops cannot know any exception in 2013 , how can Vatican Council II contradict Tradition on the issue of other religions ?
 
Where does the Church say that we can see the deceased in Heaven? Where does the Council say that there are such known exceptions? Nowhere!
We just have to wait until the SSPX and other traditionalists, the liberals and the Roman Curia, come back to Tradition-which includes Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades