Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Treharne Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way, since they were not aware of the objective error made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.It was an error in reasoning. The same reasoning was used to interpret Vatican Council II and they were not aware of it.
They did not know that there was an alternative.If they avoided this particular reasoning, Vatican Council II would be traditional on other religions and Christian communities.
This group of traditionalists have had such an important influence in the Church that now people talk about pre Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II times.They also associate the pre-Vatican Council II times with the traditionalists.While Vatican Council II is associated with the liberals. Yet the traditionalists and the liberals are using the same faulty reasoning in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.One rejects the Council and the other accepts.
Without this reasoning, we have an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is rational and not a break with pre-Vatican Council II.
The traditionalists who would avoid this error, for example, could say all Muslims are on the path to Hell according to Vatican Council II(Ad Gentes 7). This is when the B statements in AG 7 do not contradict the A statements in AG 7.(See earlier posts for a detailed explanation).Since the time of Archbishop Lefebvre B is an exception to A.This was the same for Cardinal Ratzinger.When B is not an exception if it is not explicit in the present times then A is pro-extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. If B is considered objective in the present times, then of course it becomes a break with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.So the key is B. How do you intepret B? Does it refer to explicit for us cases in the present times or does it not?
If the irrational reasoning (B is explicit) is not used then Vatican Council II (AG 7) indicates all Muslims are on the way to Hell.This would also be true for other non Catholics.
So this would not be a pre-Vatican Council II statement as it is now thought. This would be Vatican Council II itself.
Vatican Council II indicates that Mohammad did not have 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) at the time of death.This is not a pre-Vatican Council II belief. This is Vatican Council II.
Presenty the sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada are confusing Catholics, since they see things in terms of pre-Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II, similar to the liberals. This is because they too are making the same irrational error as the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.B is explicit for them. This is what they infer.
There are no known exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, known to them. They cannot name any one saved without faith and baptism. There are also no magisterial documents before 1949 which makes this irrational claim. So there cannot be anything in Vatican Council II, for us humans, which contradicts the traditional interpretation of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is there in AG 7(A). This was the mistake made by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX continues with it today.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II but with the irrational inference.Otherwise the teaching of the Catholic Church on other religions for example, is still the same before and after Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades