There needs to be an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican, simply saying hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to Tradition

• 
  
  
  

  Comment from the blog 1Peter5 :  Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal
• 

  
  
  
  

  Margaret  Chris Ferrara • a day ago

  
  

  Excellent points, Counselor. However, as Raguel noted:

  "I would say many Catholic Priests and Bishops actually hold these non-dogmatic positions as doctrine."

  That's the problem.

  To the liberals, Vatican II is ground zero. Nothing exists for them except Vatican II. Never mind the fact that there would BE no Vatican II if Vatican I, Trent and all the Councils back to Jerusalem had not occurred.

  There must be a definitive answer from Rome on what is and is not binding in Vatican II (a pastoral council).

  Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on a doctrinal agreement before any regularization of the SSPX. In my opinion, it is still necessary.
• 
  
• "I would say many Catholic Priests and Bishops actually hold these non-dogmatic positions as doctrine."
• Lionel : Yes when in principle you assume that hypothetical cases are objective in the present times and draw a conclusion on doctrine, then this innovation is the new non dogmatic position of the Church.
• _______________

To the liberals, Vatican II is ground zero. Nothing exists for them except Vatican II. Never mind the fact that there would BE no Vatican II if Vatican I, Trent and all the Councils back to Jerusalem had not occurred.

Lionel: Yes.Since with the innovation in philosphical reasoning they have created a new theology which is a break with Tradition.

__________________

There must be a definitive answer from Rome on what is and is not binding in Vatican II (a pastoral council).

Lionel:For Rome too, with the new irrational reasoning, after Vatican Council II there is a change in doctrine and praxis.

____________________________

Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on a doctrinal agreement before any regularization of the SSPX. In my opinion, it is still necessary.

Lionel: There needs to be an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican, simply saying hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water, are not physically visible in 2016 and so cannot be explicit exceptions to the 16th century interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They cannot be exceptions to Tradition.

So there cannot be any exception in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents-are-non-doctrinal/