Cardinal Raymond Burke says that when he is referred to as a fundamentalist he responds by saying if following Jesus means being called a fundamentalist then he would not object to being called a fundamentalist.
In the same way I suppose if following Jesus means being called Anti Semitic then he would agree to be called an Anti-Semite.Or perhaps not.
SInce on the issue of mortal sin and the Eucharist Cardinal Burke is Catholic for me.He may be called a fundamentalist or a traditionalist by some.
However on the issue of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) for me he is a liberal.He could not be called Anti-Semitic or fundamentalist.
I do not use subjectivism in the interpretation of the dogma EENS, Cardinal Burke and the liberals do.So he avoids the leftist label.
I do not use subjectivism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Cardinal Burke and the Jewish Left do .
I do not say that there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS or that the baptism of desire is a known exception. He does.
I do not say that hypothetical cases of being saved in invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water, are relevant to the dogma EENs. For him these cases are relevant.
I do not say that hypothetical cases must be considered objective and seen in the flesh. For him LG 16 is not hypotheical. It is an objective case. It is relevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENs. For him it is an explicit exception to EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
So in his catechesis he says not every one needs to be a formal member of the Chruch and there is salvation outside the Church.
So the average Catholic could ask : if for Cardinal Burke there is salvation outside the Church, there is salvation, for Protestants who do not go for Mass on Sundays then why do I have to do so ?
And if there is salvation outside the Church, the ordinary Catholic could ask, then why must I live like a Catholic or be a Catholic , when I can just be an average good person?