Cover up: The popes, cardinals and bishops know that with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is no rupture with Tradition in Vatican Council II. The baptism of desire refers to invisible cases and invisible cases were never an exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members for salvation.
The two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith know this and yet they are covering up the truth about Vatican Council II.
With Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), which avoids the new theology, Vatican Council II has a continuity with Tradition. With Cushingite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which assumes that the baptism of desire refers to visible and known cases in the present times, Vatican Council II has a rupture with Tradition.
The popes and the CDF know this but they do not want Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was known to St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuit missionaries of the 16th century.
Meanwhile the traditionalists are still repeating the same nonsense fed to them by Archbishop Lefebvre, who interpreted the baptism of desire as being explicit and objectively known and so his conclusion was that Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 14 etc) was a rupture with Tradition and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known in the 16th century.
Ecclesiastical masonry today wants the Society of St. Pius X and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to rubber stamp a Vatican Council II by affirming visible for us baptism of desire and so denying the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, which the secular-Left media calls 'rigorist'.
Even the communiities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.It is now a few years and neither will they or the other traditionalists admit this and correct themself in public.
If Cardinal Muller would clarify, for us, something which we all know through common sense, then he would be saying that Vatican Council II does not have the hermeneutic rupture with the Feenyite interpretation of EENS.
It was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston who were in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.
It really means Vatican Council II only affirms an ecumenism of return and there is no ambiguity.
It means there is no known salvation outside the Church and so it is a priority that all political and social teachings should have Jesus and the Catholic Church at its centre.
But the popes are not going to agree with this. So he has not commented over the last few years on these blog posts.1
December 2, 2016
But the popes are not going to agree with this. So Cardinal Muller has not commented on these blog posts: cannot contradict the pope on Amoris Laetitia and comment on the dubbia