The SSPX General Chapter Statement said:
For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation. 2
Pope Benedict XVI on March 2016 said that the Church today understands that EENS is no more doctrinally as it was in the 16th century.
The pope has negated the SSPX doctrinal position in the General Chapter Statement and he is still not affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite). He is pretending that there is no alternative theology ? There is no other interpretation of Vatican Council II?
Pope Benedict accepts 'an evolution of the dogma'.He means he has replaced EENS ( Feeneyitie) with EENS ( Cushingite).
He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope's eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”
So Pope Benedict knows that ' the Faith loses its foundation' and 'any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed' but he will continue to interpret EENS, the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) with Cushingism instead of rational Feeneyism. Since he probably has to protect his life and the Vatican.
This is coming to us from the Chair of St. Peter.For the other pope EENS( Feeneyite) would be triumphalism, rigidity, fundamentalism and restorationist.
It should be obvious that both the popes are contradicting John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. They are saying that there are exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be baptized in the only Church Jesus founded for salvation and there is no salvation outside this Church.
The SSPX General Chapter Statement supported John 3:5 on the need for the baptism of water and Mark 16:16 which says those who do not believe will be condemned.
Pope Benedict has not affirmed EENS ( Feeneyite) in February 2017 after so many reports have been written upon this on line, over a year, and interestingly he asks, as if he is ignorant, the following:
Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”
For Maike Hickson, apparently the question is 'piercing' as it would be for John Henry Weston.They both do not affirm the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and the dogma EENS with Feeneyism ( invisible cases are invisible).They also use the false philosophy and theology of Cushingism( invisible cases are visible and so there is salvation outside the Church).
BUT IT'S MAGISTERIAL
Today I received an e-mail from someone who agrees that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the present or the past.However since the magisterium has said that there are these cases he believes there are people defacto and known who are saved as such.
'But if you say that physically there are no such cases known and can be known how can the magisterium say otherwise,' I asked.'How can the present magisterium contradict the magisterium of the 16th century?'
No one has seen any such case on earth and there can be no known case as such on earth and yet the magisterium has said that there are such cases and so he accepts that there are these invisible people who are exceptions to John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.
The two popes are being politically correct.They will not clarify that the past popes referred to hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. This is common sense. The Council of Trent and popes and saints when asked affirmed speculative cases.Possibilities known only to God.
However to please the Jewish Left the Chair of St. Peter is not affirming Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism. Feeneyite philosophy and theology says since the BOD and I.I are invisible they are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS and so there is no salvation outside the Church.Instead the two popes on the feast of St. Peter today are falsely teaching ignorant Catholics, like the one who sent me the e-mail, that Vatican Council II and EENS can be interpreted with Cushingism ( since the BOD and I.I are visible they are exceptions and relevant to the dogma EENS). Pope Benedict called it a development of a dogma.A dogma has developed and that too with an irrational premise and a new conclusion.This is the hermeneutic of rupture and it is papal and official.
So for political reasons the magisterium is teaching error on Vatican Council II and EENS and no one is saying it public.Not even LifeSites or Maike Hickson or any one else.
They simply have to say the following lines but they will not.
- Vatican Council II supports the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
- There are no visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. How can invisible cases be exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2017?
- There can be a Feeneyite and Cushingite interpretation of EENS, Vatican Council II, BOD and I.I.
- There can a Feeneyite or Cushingite interpretation of the Nicene Creed. " I believe in one known baptism of the forgiveness of sin" or " I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgivness of sin, they are water, blood, desire etc'.Note there are no known cases of the baptism of desire . We cannot give someone the baptism of desire without the baptism of water.
- Is it visible or invisible? There are two ways. One way is correct and it is not the way of the popes and the present magisterium and it is not the way of the Gospel.
There are obvious mistakes in Vatican Council II since BOD and I.I are mentioned when they are irrelevant to EENS and were irrelevant to EENS in past Church documents.They practically do not exist in our reality to be practical exceptions to EENS and yet they are cited in Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14).They are interpreted as being concrete and known cases.Pope Benedict calls this a development of the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II.Papal ignorance or political correctness?
No one is telling Pope Francis and Pope Benedict to interpret Vatican Council II rationally.Don't mix up what is invisible as being visible and then make up wrong conclusions upon this wrong premise.
No one in the SSPX is asking Pope Benedict to affirm Catholic doctrine and interpret Vatican Council II and EENS rationally and without an irrational premise.Ecclesia Dei has obviously doctrinally rejected the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 while they keep parroting the lie about doctrine. They say that 'doctrine has not been changed'.