Liturgy has not preserved the Faith

It is often said that if it was not for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Traditional Latin Mass ( TLM) the Catholic Faith would not exist , as it was known over the centuries.This is not true.There  are the traditionalists, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary( MICM) who attend the TLM with different doctrines.It is not the same as the SSPX on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Then there is the Greek Mass which pre-dates the TLM.The Catholic  priests offer it with the new ecclesiology i.e the baptism of desire is objectively seen and so is a personally known exception to the dogma  EENS(Feeneyite).

Then I attend the TLM and Novus Ordo Mass with the old ecclesiology.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for me.

So it is the same liturgy but with different doctrines and ecclesiology.The  liturgy does not determine the Faith.The liturgy has not preserved the Faith.

The ecclesiology of Archbishop Lefebvre seems confused.He supports Tradition according to the saints and popes and also negates Tradition according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed him.He supports EENS( Feeneyite) according to the pre-Council of Trent magisterium but also supports EENS ( Cushingite) according to the post Council of Trent magisterium.Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX criticizes EENS( Feeneyite) while the 2012 SSPX General Chapter Statement supports it.

Today when Cardinal Raymond Burke for example, offers Holy Mass ad orientem it is a rupture with the TLM ecclesiology of the 16th century missionaries.

If he rejected the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and accepted only the first part he would return to the old ecclesiology. He would be saying hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.He returns to the old 16th century ecclesiology of the missionaries which Pope Benedict XVI rejected recently. The popes interpret hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II as being personally known and so are exceptions to EENS( Feeneyite).

Cardinal Raymond Burke has to make a simple switch  mentally and recognise that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are always theoretical for us, accepted in principle,in good faith, speculatively.

He has to recognise that Vatican Council II has made a mistake indirectly when it supposes hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.It made a mistake directly when it mentions being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. This should not have been there in the text of AG 7 and LG 16.Since it is a reference to non existing people in our reality.The baptism of desire etc is not relevant to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7).

So Church doctrine, ecclesiology was not changed when Pope Paul VI offered the first Mass in Italian.Since in his mind ecclesiology could still have been the same for him.

I attend Mass with EENS( Feeneyite), Vatican Council II( Feneyite-no known exceptions to EENS), the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite-hypothetical cases are not objectively known), Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-there is one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins and not three),Letter of the Holy Office 1949( Feeneyite-first part of the Letter), ecumemism of return( Feeneyite-since there is no known salvation outside the Church), inter-religious dialogue ( Feeneyite-outside the Church there is no salvation), Social Reign of Christ the King ( Feeneyite-since outside the Church there is no salvation), the non separation of Church and State( Feeneyite-since outside the Church there is no salvation),eschatology( Feeneyite-there are only Catholics in Heaven since outside the Church there is no salvation) and the old ecclesiology( Feeneyite-based on EENS Feeneyite).

For Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Bernard Fellay it is the opposite. They offer Holy Mass with EENS(Cushingite), Vatican Council II( Cushingite-there are known exceptions to EENS), the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite-hypothetical cases are objectively known in 2016), Nicene Creed ( Cushingite-there is not one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins but three or more ),Letter of the Holy Office 1949( Cushingite-second part of the Letter is accepted which contradicts the first part), ecumemism of return( Cushingite-this ecumenism is rejected since allegedly there is known salvation outside the Church,there is the Anonymous Christian).It is the new ecumenism for them.For them inter-religious dialogue is Cushingite- since outside the Church there is known salvation.The  Social Reign of Christ the King  is Cushingite-since outside the Church there is known salvation.The  non separation of Church and State is the result of Cushingism since outside the Church there is known salvation.Eschatology is  Cushingite-there are not only Catholics in Heaven but non Catholics too, since outside the Church there is salvation.Ecclesiology is Cushingite-based on EENS Cushingite.-Lionel Andrades