The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate have said that they accept all the documents of Vatican Council. So do I.But so does Fr.Fidenzio Volpi ofm cap. For this Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate Vatican Council II is a break with the past as it is for Pope Francis and the Jesuits.As it is for the SSPX.
I accept all the documents of Vatican Council II and I interpret them with the hermeneutic of continuity,with the centuries old dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So I reject the Letter of the Holy Office which does not have this continuity with the past.
So I would ask the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate to use my interpretation of Vatican Council II with the hermenutic of continuity. In this way they could accept also the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius XII.This would be rejected by Fr.Fidenzio Volpi and Cardinal Braz de Avez, the head of the Congregation for Religious,Vatican.
If Fr.Fidenzio Volpi asks me if Vatican Council II is a break with the past, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the rigorist
interpretation of the dogma, I would say 'no'.
1.Since the Letter suggested that Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is irrational since there is no known case. How can these cases known only to God be defacto, objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
2.Then the Letter suggests that there are magisterial documents which support this view. This is false. There is no pre-1949 Church document which states that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus or that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known and visible cases.They would have to refer to known and visible cases for them to be exceptions to the dogma and Tradition.
Neither does Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent make this claim.
They only refer to implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as a possibility known to God.
The Letter of the Holy Office infers, implies, suggests that these cases are visible and known to us to be exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.This is factually incorrect. Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani who issued the Letter has no historical precedent to support his view.
So this is a new doctrine which has come to us from the Holy Office 1949.It is also heresy since it rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, changes the Nicene Creed and presents an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Once it is understood that there are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma, the baptism of desire etc not being one of them, Vatican Council II changes. It means that references to salvation in Vatican Council II are only possibilities. They are hypothetical for us and could be followed with the baptism of water. They are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors or the Catechism of Pope Pius XI.
In this way, one can have it both ways. The dogma is compatible with the baptism of desire being invisible for us. Vatican Council II is compatible with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. Since LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not exceptions to the dogma. It does not have to be Vatican Council II or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We can accept all the documents of Vatican Council II and also the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Ecclesiology is the same for the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass.Excusive ecclesiology is the basis for our traditional position on religious liberty and the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political systems.
This would not be how Fr.Fidenzio Volpi interprets Vatican Council II. For him LG 16 etc refer to known cases in the present times. Since they are known to him they are exceptions to Tradition. This is irrational. Yet this would be his reasoning.He probably knows it is wrong.Many times I have asked him and his secretary to clarify this but they will not.
So the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate can choose a rational, traditional and non heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II unlike the Vatican Curia.They must ask Fr.Volpi to deny in public his irrational, non tradtional and heretical position on Vatican Council II and Tradition.
Ask Cardinal Braz de Avez to choose the rational interpretation of the Council for all Catholic religious communities, including the Franciscans of the Immaculate.