A fundamental difference between Archbishop Muller and me is the baptism of desire - is it explicit or implicit, objective or hypothetical?
Since Archbishop Muller affirms exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) he infers that there are known baptism of desire cases. He indicates that the baptism of desire and blood are explicit and exclude the baptism of water.So they are exceptions to the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The hypothetical case of the baptism of desire and blood, without the baptism of water,would have to be objective and real, known in particular cases,personal cases,otherwise it couldn't be an exception.Otherwise how could he say there are exceptions? So the inference he makes is irrational.There cannot be personally known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
For me there are no exceptions to EENS. There are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire etc. They are invisible for us human beings.So there could not be any such known case in the present times.
This was the understanding of the baptism of desire and blood during the time of the Papal States, when there was no separation of Church and State.
So during the rule of the Popes,Rome knew that non Catholics were free to live and follow their religion, but outside the Church there was no salvation.So all needed to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This was how Catholics understood the link between Church and State, before the Masons in different ways prohibited this teaching of the Church.
Based upon Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS I affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.There is no separation of Church and State.To have a secular Masonic Constituion is being pro-Satan, for me.I would support the separation of State and secularism.
So I am not against the right of non Catholics to live their life freely, in as much as the popes were not against it.
I would also be willing to affirm that there are 'good and holy' things in other religions , known only to God, even though the religion is not a path to salvation.Their members are all oriented to Hell unless they formally enter the Catholic Church, and live its teachings.
Today we see mainstream Muslims ( Al Azhar University etc) affirming outside Islam there is no salvation.All need to accept Allah and Mohammad to avoid Hell.So they have world wide mission(dawah).
The SSPX too, like the popes of the past and present day Muslim clerics and political leaders, can affirm the right of non Catholics to freely live their religion.They can do this while affirming outside the Church there is no salvation.
So the Constitution of all nation-states, ideally, need to be Catholic.This will ensure that most people get to Heaven. Catholics based on the teachings of Jesus(John 3:5, Mark 16:16,Matthew 7:13) expressed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, would politically oppose secular Constitutions.
Similarly during the time of the Papal States ,Rome allowed Protestants to live and follow their religion.Many Christian denominations existed.Their members were not killed or banished from the land.It was understood though that they were all going to Hell, since outside the Church there is no salvation.This is still the teaching of the Church today for me.Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma EENS.
I avoid the explicit-implicit,objective-subjective,visible-invisible confusion.
Cardinal Muller uses this confusion,as do the Masons, to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS.
Just as religious liberty and ecumenism can now be interpreted traditionally, without rejecting Vatican Council II, so can the liturgy be affirmed with the old ecclesiology.Since Vatican Council II is not a rupture with EENS for me, the old ecclesiology is still magisterial and in place.The priest offers the Mass knowing all non Catholics are oriented to Hell according to the Council(AG 7, LG 14) and the dogma EENS ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
The SSPX too like me recognises the Novus Ordo Mass as being valid and being the Sacrifice of Jesus, the un-bloody Sacrifice, re-enacted.
It was only the theology of the Novus Ordo Mass which was a problem for them and me, since the theology was Cushingite.
The old theology was rejected in 1960-1965 since the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was still not lifted by Pope Paul VI.
For me the theology of the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass is the same as it was for the 16th century missionaries.
Vatican Council II is not an obstacle to accepting the old ecclesiology of St. Francis Xavier and St.Robert Bellarmine.
I accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit for us baptism of desire.
The popes and cardinals accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with explicit for us baptism of desire.This is irrational and heretical for me.
I mention all this hoping that the SSPX too would accept Vatican Council II as I do.This will not be acceptable to Cardinal Muller.If they use my approach, which is traditional and rational, Cardinal Muller and the political Left, can no more say that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II.They say this now, only because of the ignorance of the SSPX leadership.
So when the Jewish Left ADL and the Leftist,liberal hate group SPLC, for example, state, that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II, the SSPX should respond saying, 'We affirm Vatican Council II in continuity with the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the 16th century missionaries.
'We affirm outside the Church there is no salvation and there are no known exceptions,as was stated in the General Chapter Statement 2012.
'We invite Cardinal Gerhard Muller and the CDF cardinals and bishops, to also affirm Vatican Council II as we do.'
Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism? -1