If they called me a fundamentalist I would say that it is true that I affirm the Syllabus of Errors,the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)according to the 16th century missionaries but I also accept Vatican Council II, with all hypothetical cases being invisible and not explicit in 2016.So I affirm the Catholic Church's teachings before and after Vatican Council II, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995),with no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology as it was known to St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier.
I do not interpret magisterial documents with the Kasper-Lefebvre premise,which infers invisible cases are visible in 2016.I do not apply the Ratzinger-Rahner new theology to Vatican Council II which infers invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(Lumen Gentium 16) are visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS; to 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.So with the old ecclesiology in place, for me, there is no change in the Church's old teachings on ecumenism(only of return) and no known salvation outside the Church in other religions.Since there is no salvation outside the visible Church, and all need to be incorporated as members I affirm the need for the Social Reign of Christ King and the non separation of Church and State.The inter-office Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake when it assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit.It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who was in heresy for me and Fr.Leonard Feeney who was teaching orthodoxy.
So I differ from the liberals, traditionalists and sedevacantists who use the Kasper-Lefebvre new theology to interpret Vatican Council II etc.The liberals accept the irrational and heretical conclusion and the traditionalists reject it but both use the same new, irrational theology.
Like them all I do not use the irrational premise and so my conclusion is not non traditional and heretical like that of the present magisterium and the political Left.
I affirm Feeneyite EENS and implicit- for-us and known-only- to- God baptism of desire.So there is no violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Someone allegedly saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in the past, cannot be a living exception to the dogma EENS in 2016.
If a liberal says he is a Catholic and accepts Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016 , he differs from me.
If a traditionalist says he rejects Vatican Council II, with hypothetical cases being explicit, I would agree with him.I too reject this irrational Cushingite version of Vatican Council II.
However unlike the traditionalist, I accept Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.
I am a Catholic. If being a Catholic is being a fundamentalist then so am I.-Lionel Andrades
October 18, 2016