There are no 'practical exceptions' in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

The Remnant and Catholic Family News published a letter and a Liber of Accusation against Pope Francis entitled, “With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis” and have seen the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia  but not the subjectivism in their interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II.

Nor have they seen the subjectivity  of the two popes in salvation theology.
Presently every priest has to accept this subjectivism in salvation theology to be incardinated ; to be accepted by the Vatican. This point was omitted in the Liber.

Even the Traditional Latin Mass today is modernist,Pope Francis only permits this Mass, with  subjectivism in salvation theology.The old ecclesiology is omitted.
It is obligatory for all Catholics to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) without the baptism of water, as being not subjective but objective, seen in the flesh in 2016.

This subjectivism which is the foundation of the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology is being taught this semester at all Catholic universities and seminaries. Even Fr. Matthias Gaudron, of the SSPX in Germany, who was critical of the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia, does not oppose this subjectivism in the interpretation of the new salvation theology.

The irrationality is  taught by Fr. Jean Marie Gleize at the SSPX seminary in Econe,Switzerland.It is the same at other SSPX seminaries.Yet Chris Ferrara often says that the SSPX is not teaching anything new.The SSPX is allegedly not saying anything new?!

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre approved this error and did not know it was responsible for the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition in Vatican Council II.

Without this subjectivism in the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology Vatican Council II can be interpreted as not being a break with Quanta Cura.The Council is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.The Council is Feeneyite ( theology which says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) and traditional.

So the Liber does not tell Pope Francis that Vatican Council II can  be interpreted without his wrongly assuming we can subjectively discern a BOD case in 2016.

It does not say that we can re- nterpret LG 16, LG 8, etc  as not by being explicit and personally known, since they can only be personally known to God and not to us humans.

Vatican Council II will then be in harmony with the  dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries  and not according  to Pope Benedict XVI.Since there are no 'practical exceptions', (a phrase used by Chris Ferrara) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ferrara is saying that there are no 'practical exceptions' to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. However he is still not saying that there are no practical exceptions  in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The Liber does not mention this.This is a very important point which he left out.

It may be said that the issue of Fr.Leonard Feeney is of the past, an injustice was done to him for being faithful to the teachings of the Church.However the Liber does not say that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case determines how Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II today.He assumes there are practical exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.So theologically he de-rails Vatican Council II with the past, with the popes and saints on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For me there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the two popes are wrong and so are the SSPX bishops.
 

 SSPX CANONICAL REQUIREMENT

This is an important issue since the canonical requirement for the SSPX is that they accept Vatican Council II with 'practical exceptions'.They need to point out this error to the Vatican.Vatican Council II can be acceopted also as having not practical exceptions to the old ecclesiology. There are no practical exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II(Feeneyite). The ecclesiology is traditional without the Rahner-Ratzinger theology.

FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE

The regularisation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate also depends on their accepting the Rahner-Ratzinger new doctrines on salvation, based on 'practical exceptions' to EENS.Pope Francis   was not asked to correct his error.

SEDEVACANTISTS

Vatican Council II with this error, is the reason for the sedevacantists ( MHFM etc) being sedevacantists during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.They do not know that the baptism of desire refers to imaginary cases and so never were relevant to EENS.This is a mistake of the Vatican Curia too.It was important for the liber to have clarified this point.The problem again is subjectivism in salvation theology.

-Lionel Andrades