This is providing misinformation.
Since you are either accepting one and rejecting the other.You can't have it both ways.So they should say that they are in reality rejecting Vatican Council II since they affirm the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus-or vice versa.
Tantamblogo writes on the Blog for Dallas Area Catholics that he met a religious sister of the St.Benedict Center, Still River,MA.He was impressed. She did not seem to affirm the 'the rigorist interpretation' of extra eclesiam nulla salus. He would also be impressed with the community at Richmond N.H Since they accept Vatican Council II and reject the dogma.
When I refer to Vatican Council II above it is the Council interpreted with the false proposition and false conclusion. This is their understanding of Vatican Council II.This is approved by their respective bishops in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA. The false premise and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, allows the bishops to reject the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Church Councils, the popes, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So in reality the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, like their bishops, reject the dogma since for them Vatican Council is interpreted as a break with the dogma i.e with the false premise and false conclusion.
They do not know that there is an option.They could still affirm the traditional dogma and Vatican Council II if they do not use the irrational premise /proposition in the interpretation.
So for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to say presently that they accept the traditional interpretation of the dogma- is misleading.
In theory yes, in practise no. Yes to the doctrine, no to the 'praxis'. Yes in principle, in reality, though , there is a 'development of doctrine'.Vatican Council II is the evidence.
1.I ask them to answer the two simple questions which express their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. They will not.
2.I ask them to comment on Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome and the apologist John Martigioni saying that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire..They will not respond.I mention that they agree with me. There is no comment.
3.I ask them if their theology is based on an empirical vision of the dead -saved with the baptism of desire.There is no answer.
4.I mention that novices at the St.Benedict Center have to use an irrational premise and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II approved by the bishop. They will not deny it.
5.I tell them that I interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma and they don't ask me to explain myself and neither do they disagree with me, with specifics.
6.They say the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance must be followed by the baptism of water and I agree with them. Can they interpret LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 in the same way? Any one who is saved according to LG 16,UR 3 etc would also be saved with the baptism of water?
With so much confusion they are unintentionally misleading people on Vatican Council II relative to the dogma.-Lionel Andrades
It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is not just my opinion