How is Bishop Fellay going to announce that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake?

 Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) should realize by now that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre their founder, made a doctrinal mistake.

As mentioned in the previous post, the SSPX is rejecting Vatican Council II because Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has rejected it.

 

a) Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of Vatican Council II with or without the premise.He was not aware of the premise being the cause of the break with the past.

b) He did not notice the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He also assumed  that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Hindu in Tibet 1 can be saved in his religion, it is true, but we don't know any such case, defacto.The Hindu in Tibet is saved through Jesus and the Church, true, but he is not physically visible to us in the present times to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto, explicit exception.All need to convert into the Church in 2014 for salvation and the Hindu being saved in Tibet is irrelevant.It is a possibility, something theoretical.

 

Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that the baptism of desire was  visible to us and these cases were personally known to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.Otherwise why did he need to mention it ?.For him it was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Feeneyism.He picked up the error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The four SSPX bishops have since repeated the same irrationality.

 

Their founder  then extended the same error to Vatican Council II.It was the Cushingite error. This is the error of the deceased being visible exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water to aviod Hell.Archbishop Cushing and the Jesuits were active in Boston in 1949 and at Vatican Council II.The Jesuit Fr.Karl Rahner  placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger even though it was not inserted in the Act Apostolica Sedis. He used as a reference, an American magazine!

Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that being saved with ' ray of the Truth' (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc referred to visible for us cases.So  for him they were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

 

He used the same irrational thinking of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Without the Cushingite premise the Council would be traditional but he did not know it.

He was correct in rejecting  the general interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the premise. He was not aware though,that it was the premise which caused a break with the past.

Neither did the magisterium mention this at any time.So one cannot blame him.Even until today , after half a century, no Vatican office has issued  a correction.

 

 

Now, how is Bishop Fellay going to get the SSPX to accept all this ?!! 
-Lionel Andrades 

1

Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)