What I have been writing here is known to many Catholics.I am not the first one to discuss it.

I have been working hard on this blog so that before the BIG CRUNCH comes Catholics will know the following.

1.Being saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are acceptable and do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2.Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani did not know of anyone saved outside the Catholic Church, so he could not infer that God is not limited to the Sacraments and that there was salvation outside the Catholic Church.

3.Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there is no salvation outside the Church.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not cases  of being saved outside the Church. There are no such cases known to us. So he was correct.

4.Since we cannot humanly know of any one saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church  in 2015 ( without faith and baptism), there cannot be in Vatican Council II, any exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and  baptism for salvation.

5.So a Catholic can affirm the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it would be magisterial, according to the texts of Vatican Council II.It would be a rational and traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II without the Marchetti premise.

6.The Magisterium, the Society of St.Pius X, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary ( St.Benedict Centers,USA) and traditionalists in general, are using the Marchetti irrationality, the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

7.Vatican Council II can be interpreted in two ways, with or without the irrational premise.

1) LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 etc.can refer to salvation without the baptism of water and in cases explicit, objective and personally known in 2015.So they are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2015 for salvation.This was the position of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston.They were using the reasoning of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.

2)These cases are known only to God and so are invisible for us in 2015.So they are irrelevant to the dogma.

So traditionalists can choose from the two interpretations.

8) Catholics can affirm Vatican Council II ( not interpreted with the premise) and also the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.

Vatican Council II ( interpreted with the premise) would contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite, traditional version.

9)The SSPX General Chapter Statement contradicts the SSPX USA's Angelus  Press.The General Chapter affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.While Fr.Francois Laisney's Is Feeneyism Catholic (Angelus Press) says there are exceptions.the book is based on Marchetti's error and is being sold by the SSPX.

10)The SSPX in general accepts the irrational inference in the Letter of the Holy Office i.e the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, since these cases are explicit. They would have to be explicit to be exceptions.While it rejects the same irrational inference in Vatican Council II.
Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words it refers to known exceptions to the dogma. This cannot be accepted by the SSSPX: So they reject Vatican Council II and yet they accept the Marchetti Letter.

11) When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it is based on Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's assuming that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.The dogma tells us that God has chosen to limit salvation to the Catholic Church.

________________

Whatever I have writing on this issue over the last four or five years is usually a presentation or re-presentation of these points.My own thinking has been honed in, clarified and made concrete by writing on this blog.

What I have been writing here is known to many Catholics.I am not the first one to discuss it.I believe other Catholics also knew about all this.
I am a simple lay man with no attachments and so at this point of time,I was able to express myself  unlike informed bishops, priests and nuns, who know exactly what I am saying and agree with me -  but choose to remain silent in obedience to their superiors.

I have been working actively on this issue since 1997-1998 when I began theological studies as a lay student at a liberal Catholic seminary.The loose ends are now tied, and in a sense, my work is over.
It is now for those lay Catholics who understand what I have said , to take it up and carry on.
All this is the teaching of the magisterium, I repeat, according to magisterial documents, not interpreted with an irrational premise.

Whenever I say that the magisterium made a mistake I am referring to their use of the premise to interpret magisterial documents especially Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades