The SSPX must especially do so.
For the SSPX the magisterial teachings are accepted with regard to the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 but the magisterium is rejected with reference to Vatican Council II ( with the premise).The SSPX accepts that the baptism of desire can be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However they do not accept that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) can be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it suggests that those persons saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times, to be exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet they do not accept Lumen Gentium 16(with the premise) when it refers to known cases in the present times, which are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for the SSPX.
Is this not a contradiction and irrational? So what is the SSPX position on doctrine?
The SSPX accepts the Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani inference in 1949 which indicates that people in Heaven can be visible and known to us in the present times( 1949 for him and 2015 for us ). So they are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors, which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.
Yet the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8, NA 2,UR 3 etc). They infer that these cases are explicit exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.
Don't you think there is something wrong with the SSPX doctrinal policy. Should this not be clarified by them?The SSPX General Chapter Statement 1 said that they accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. While the SPPX USA's Angelus Press, is selling a book written by Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic ?. It affirms the Marchetti error. It says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words these cases are visible and known to us, to be exceptions.
So the SSPX USA contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement.Inspite of writing about this so many times on my blog no one from the SSPX wants to comment.
This elevating of opinion as having some basis for the pronouncement and false perpetuation of others being in 'schism' is wholly erroneous.
The onus for clarifying this doctrinal confusion lies with the SSPX.For them doctrine is important.Also their doctrinal position will decide if they will receive canonical status.
For 'personal opinion' is precisely that which is being protested by those who chasten the 'lawful' authority for seemingly having lost their heads and/or having evil intentions.
The SSPX and the lawful authority are both in the same leaky boat on this issue.They both accept the Marchetti Confusion.
You don't say, is the line that comes to my mind. But try to look to pecipitating causes or the roots of 'why' and everyone goes back to the conditioned response - schism.
For the leftist forces within and outside the Catholic Church Vatican Council II must be accepted as a break with the past.So it has to be interpreted with the irrational premise.This is a schismatic position doctrinally.The magisterium is in schism.
Those who do not accept this heresy and irrationally with reference to doctrine, will politically be dubbed schismatic , reactionary etc.Cardinal Muller says the SSPX is in schism...
Those who do not accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus without the irrational premise, will also be called Feeneyite, Anti-Semtic, haters etc.
So if the SSPX says that they accept Vatican Council II without the premise, they would still be persecuted. There would be legal threats.
The SSPX avoided the anti-Semitism charge and so disassociated them self from Bishop Richard Williamson. They also removed priests (SSPX-Resistance) who criticized the Masons and the Jewish Left.
Now how will the SSPX say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ? They will persecuted, as was Robert Sungenis, Bishop Williamson and others.
And without any understanding of what that means. And that seems to be the point. Confusing Catholics to such a degree that they toss around words and develop mental blocks to those who are actually in agreement with them.
Lay Catholics must see the truth for them self on this subject. They should not depend on the bishops and priests, liberals and traditionalists.Since they are protecting their churches ,institutions, work etc.
They must know basically that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error. There are no known exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Humanly speaking there cannot be any known exception, since we cannot see people who are in Heaven. So there cannot be any exception, mentioned in Vatican Council II, to the strict interpretation of the dogma.
Also when the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) says God is not limited to the Sacraments, this statement comes directly from the Cardinal Marchetti mistake. The cardinal assumed there is known salvation outside the Church and so God is not limited to the Sacraments.-Lionel Andrades
This was a Catholic Church gone into schism