The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) is still wasting time and not proclaiming the truth about Vatican Council II.They remind me of the priests whom I meet here ( non SSPX) who know what I am saying , but are afraid to say in public,that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) in Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.
They will not give me a statement.
The SSPX I assume know that - defacto, objectively, there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There cannot be any known exception.They know that the baptism of desire and blood, without the baptism of water, can only be accepted theoretically, in principle,in faith,as speculation, as a possibility.It is not a known reality in personal cases.
So there is no exception mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS, according to the 16th century missionaries.
Knowing this- that there are no known exceptions to the ancient teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation-the SSPX has to change its perception in ecclesiology, salvation for non Catholics in Vatican Council II, ecumenism based on there being known salvation outside the Church and interpreting the liturgy with the new ecclesiology( Cushingite) or old ecclesiology ( Feeneyite).
The SSPX needs to clarify this.Simply announce that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.This is something objective.Defacto, objectively there are no known exceptions to EENS in 2016.There cannot be any known exception to EENS in Vatican Council II. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases.Even LG 14 which mentions 'those who know', refers to a hypothetical case. So it cannot be an exception to the 'rigorist interpretation', of the dogma EENS.
By making this announcement the SSPX would be saying that they were wrong about Vatican Council II all these years.They were interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism( there are known exceptions to EENS).They assumed there were known exceptions to EENS( Letter of the Holy Office 1949).So they inferred that the baptism of desire etc were objective, defacto and known.With this reasoning they assumed there were exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
They were correct when they said that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition but this is only because they mistook hypothetical cases as being objectively known.The error was there with the SSPX premise ( being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to visible cases, personally known) and conclusion ( so physically explicit, baptism of desire etc is an exception to EENS, it is an example of outside the Church there is known salvation).The fault is not there with Vatican Council II if this premise and conclusion is avoided.
Without the premise and conclusion the SSPX would be interpreting Vatican Council II and the dogma EENs with Feeneyism( there are no exceptions to EENS, there are no known exceptions to EENS). They would also be interpreting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.
The Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto De Mattei, the Hildebrands and Michael Davis.They did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with Feeneyism. Then the Council is not a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma EENS.
Some lay supporters of the SSPX say on blog posts that Vatican Council II can be interpreted as a break with Tradition or in agreement with Tradition. This would not be true for me.Since one interpretation would be irrational and non traditional.How can we accept an irrational ( Cushingite) interpretation of Vatican Council II ? How can we create a new theology (subjectivism in traditional salvation theology) based on an irrational philosophy (we can subjectively know objective exceptions to EENS in the present times)?
Others say that Vatican Council II is ambigous.This is only because the Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction is not made.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Roberto De Mattei, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Alice von Hildebrand, Michael Davis and Christopher Ferrara did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with Feeneyism.
Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism?