Traditionalists need to admit that the dogma EENS can be interpreted with Feeneyism and not with irrational Cushingism ( there are known exceptions) as is being done by Pope Francis and sadly, also the traditionalists.
The theological basis for this syncretism was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when the baptism of desire and blood etc were considered 1)explicit and 2)without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Then this was inferred to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Based on this irrational exception we have the new theology.
The following report has been sent to Salza and Siscoe and I do not expect them to comment on the two points.
- If Salza-Siscoe admit something obvious like the baptism of desire case is not visible in 2016 then it would mean Abp.Lefebvre and Bp.Fellay made a factual error
Bishop Fellay and the SSPX too will not answer them.
You Vox, have commented upon it. It is common sense. You have said every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions, in the present times.There cannot be any known exception for us human beings.
There is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church, there cannot be any known salvation. So the new theology since the time of Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis on salvation is irrational and heretical.
It is time for the traditionalists to point out that Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) supports the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Also, they need to admit that the dogma EENS can be interpreted with Feeneyism and not with irrational Cushingism ( there are known exceptions) as is being done by Pope Francis and sadly, also the traditionalists.