FULL CIRCLE: it is important to reject the SSPX doctrinal interpretation of Vatican Council II based on ' a known catechumen'.The SSPX misleads Catholics

1.Over the centuries there have been people who wanted to eliminate the Catholic dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). The Masons have been opposing it too.

2.One of their approaches has been the theory of the catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before receiving it and who could be saved.With goodwill the popes and saints have agreed that it was possible.The Council of Trent also mentions 'the desiretherof'.

3.Then in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office it was assumed  that his catechumen was a known person.The Archbishop of Boston took a new direction.The Letter suggested that since this catechumen was known, he was an exception; a known exception, to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So the Letter said: 'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing'.

4.This was a change in Catholic salvation theology based upon 'known cases' of an unknown catechumen.

5.This became a new principle in Vatican Council II.It was an innovation.The new principle said hypothetical, theoretical cases (BOD etc) were baptisms like the baptism of water.They were also explicit like the baptism of water and they were exceptions to the dogma EENS.So Vatican Council II speculated. It suggested that not every one needed to enter the Church since 'that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing'.'

6.This is a philosophical and theological error in Vatican Council II.The Council suggests that there is known salvation outside the Church.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are interpreted as known cases.They were not hypothetical, for Cardinal Cushing, the Jesuits and others.So they were included in the text of the Council.

7.Archbishop Lefebvre who participated at Vatican Council II  was not aware of this error.He accepted it.Even today the SSPX and the sedevacantists assume Vatican Council II rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS.

8.Pope Benedict XVI recently announced that EENS was no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries.There was ' a development' with Vatican Council II.The SSPX and sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanform, Fr. Anthony Cekada, MHFM etc say the same.Vatican Council II's hypothetical cases are a rupture with the dogma EENS for all of them.

9.So we have identified the mistake.We now are aware of the missing link.The position of Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX and the sedevacantists is modernist.For them imaginary cases are real.

10.We can change the interpretation. Eliminate the error.Assume LG 16 etc are hypothetical, as they really are.Then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS.Vatican Council II is saying all Jews, Muslims, Protestants etc need to enter the Church, with faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.We know that most people on earth are oriented to Hell, since they die without 'faith and baptism'.

We know that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims etc are oriented to the fires of Hell ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441) and there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Council of Florence 1441.

So it is important to reject the SSPX doctrinal interpretation of Vatican Council II based on ' a known catechumen'.The SSPX misleads Catholics and is unable to say that all Jews, Muslims etc need to convert into Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II,.
They all need to convert into the Catholic Church,  with no ambiguity, according to Vatican Council II, in agreement with EENS as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.

We've come back full circle after some 50- plus years of confusion.

-Lionel Andrades