Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 says 'The same declaration (LG. 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities' and the SSPX bishop concludes that
'Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.' 1
There was no response from Bishop Bernard Fellay or any one in the SSPX in 2014, two years back,when I mentioned the following two points :
1.We do not know any one in 2014 who is saved outside the Church, i.e without Catholic Faith and baptism.So how is LG 8 an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the Church Councils, the popes and saints'?
Why is LG 8 an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church ?
2.Secondly how can the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 'reaffirm' the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ? There was no magisterial document before 1949, which inferred that the baptism of desire was visible for us.Also no pre- 1949 Church document states that these cases of the baptism of desire etc are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 infers that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.In other words ir is relevant.How can it be relevant if we do not know any such case in real life.?
Bishop Fellay has written a foreword to the book True or False Pope Refuting sedevacantism and other modern errors by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.
If Salza and Siscoe admit something obvious like the baptism of desire is not visible in known cases in 2016 ( we do not and cannot see any person saved with the baptism of desire and there was no known case of salvation outside the Church ( without faith and baptism) in 1949 when the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston was issued by the Holy Office) then, it would mean Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay made a factual error.
In their book they did not tell the sedevacantists, and Bishop Fellay, that Vatican Council II cannot be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, unless it is assumed that LG 8, LG 16 etc refer to known cases in the present time.To assume there are such known cases would be irrational thinking.
Yet this is the irrational reasoning we see made by Bishop Fellay in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82. Why does Bishop Fellay have to mention Lumen Gentium 8 with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Where are the objective LG 8 cases ? Why is LG 8 relevant to EENS?
Why does he imply that LG 8 and Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma EENS?
For me LG 8 does not refer to explicit cases. So LG 8 is not a break with the dogma EENS as understood by St. Robert Bellarmine, the Council of Florence 1441 etc.
Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism since it is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So the sedevacantists are wrong to have gone into sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II being a break with EENS and the perennial magisterium of the Catholic Church.Salza and Siscoe are not going to tell them this.
Siscoe and Salza cannot point this out since they would be saying that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay are in error.It is an objective error, a black and white case.
April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX
Another baptism of desire list in which it is assumed that the deceased are visible to us http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/another-baptism-of-desire-list-in-which.html
The Baptism of Desire refers to invisible cases. This is common sense. If a pope or saint says otherwise it would be wrong
Sedevacantists do not realize that the baptism of desire will always be invisible for us. This is not a theory of mine. It is a fact of life.
LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict EENS : Abp. Lefebvre's excommunication was a mistake
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was doctrinally wrong his spiritual heirs must admit for a reconciliation with the truth
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way
This group of traditionalists instead of correcting the factual error of 1949 consolidated it and did not expose it
If Louie Verrecchio answers the two questions frankly he would be at odds with the SSPX http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/if-louie-verrecchio-answers-two.html
Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me