Fr.John Zuhlsdorf recently wrote that the SSPX could be material/ de iure schism and that their canonical position is 'ambigous'. He mentions ' the gravity of the material schism by which souls are at grave risk of not being saved for as long as the situation perdures.'.
Yes the SSPX would be in material schism for rejecting Vatican Council II if the criteria for the interpretation of the Council is Cushingism, the irrational premise and inference and the right hand column.(see tags for a definition of these terms)
If the irrational premise and inference was avoided, and if Feeneyism and the left hand column were used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II then Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf would be in material schism.They would be interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
I Lionel, affirm Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise and inference and with Feeneyism and the left hand side column.
At the centre of Fr. Zuhlsdorf and my interpretation of Vatican Council II is EENS.He does not realize this.
For Fr.Z the popes cannot be heresy since he cannot conceive, perhaps, of magisterial heresy among the contemporary popes ( from Pius XII to Francis).
For me the contemporary Magisterium uses fantasy theology which is a break with the pre-1949 magisterium.So the Magisterium has to be wrong either before or after 1949.Any one who infers we can see and know people in Heaven in 2015 as we see and know people on earth has to be wrog. If a pope or cardinal implies this he is still wrong.
The SSPX says they affirm the perennial Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The perennial Magisterium ( before 1949) did not interpret the dogma EENS with Cushingism.
1.They did not assume salvation in Heaven is visible and known on earth for us human beings.
2. They did not assume that these 'visible cases' exclude the baptism of water.
3.They did not infer that these allegedly visible cases were explicit exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church with 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
For Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and the present Magisterium all these three errors ( 1,2,3) are there in their theology.
It is their position on Vatican Council II which is ambigous because of this irrationality of which they are not aware of.
For the SSPX and for them, there would be no ambiguity if they interpreted all magisterial documents without irrational Cushingism and without the false premise and inference which creates a new theology.
There is no ambiguity then in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The ambiguity comes with Cushingism which is a new theology based on the irrationality of being able to see and know of non Catholics now in Heaven who are there without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith( the premise) and who are exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS ( the inference).So all do not need to convert into the Church in the present times ( the false conclusion).
I have written about this in the past. Quite a few times and I have e-mailed and tweeted this to Fr.Z. He could comment on ' the gravity of the material schism (heresy) by which souls are at grave risk of not being saved for as long as the situation perdures.'.-Lionel Andrades