The next time you hear Bishop Fellay criticize Vatican Council II know it is for the liberal lobby he indirectly supports them : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake in principle and was not aware of it

The next time you hear Bishop Fellay criticize Vatican Council II know it is for the liberal lobby; he is doing the work of the progressivists, since Archbishop Lefebvre did not know what was the exact cause of this liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II.Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake in principle and was not aware of it.

Simply point it out to Bishop Fellay that in principle, hypothetical cases known only to God cannot be on earth exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and this is the centre of the issue.This was the original mistake of Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger.

Once Bishop Fellay corrects this mistake he will be interpreting Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, a continuity with the old ecclesiology.

1) He will be interpreting extra ecclesiam nulla salus without there being hypothetical cases which are considered explicit exceptions to the old understanding of exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

2) He will have to interpret Vatican Council II without in principle mixing up what is invisible as being visible, subjective as being objective.

3) Bishop Fellay will have to interpret the popes and saints as not confusing hypothetical  cases as being known exceptions to the dogma EENS.They never were relevant to the traditional ecclesiology,unless one confuses what is theoretical as being de facto and known in the present times.

So when St. Thomas Aquinas for example, refers to the man in the forest, the reference is to a hypotheical case.So the man in forest in ignorance should not be considered an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

When the saints refer to the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but died before receiving it and is saved, it is a reference to a hypothetical case.

When Vatican Council II refers to someone saved in  'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3) it is a theoretical case in 2016.It should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II but now that it is there, it still is not an exception to Tradition( the dogma EENS, the ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors etc).

Similarly we do not know of any one saved with 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) in 2016, with or without the baptism of water.The Council Fathers in principle made a mistake.The mistake was already made in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.However still, AG 11 is not an exception to Tradition.Since it refers to an invisible case.

Once this error is corrected, Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology .Bishop Fellay could then ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo to interpret Vatican Council II without making this mistake.

Bishop Fellay has said he accepts 90% of Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo Mass is valid.He criticised its theology(Cushingite).Now he can support the Novus Ordo Mass with the old ecclesiology, the old theology.Since there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II.In principle hypothetical cases cannot be examples in 2016 of known persons who are saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades

When I meet Catholics I say Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation and all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/when-i-meet-catholics-i-say-that.html