While I affirm all magisterial documents like the two popes and cardinals, our interpretation is different : they may not like my conclusion but they cannot show me an error in theology or philosophy.

While I affirm all magisterial documents like the two popes and cardinals, our interpretation is different.I differ from the liberals and the traditionalists.No one can correct me or tell me that I have made a mistake.They may not like my conclusion but they cannot show me an error in theology or philosophy.

In the ecclesiology debate which can be see on YouTube Dr.Robert Fastiggi told Bishop Donald Sanborn that he was in heresy for not affirming Vatican Council II while the bishop suggested Fastiggi was in heresy for not affirming the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation with reference to the Jews and an ecumenism of return with reference to the Protestants and Orthodox Christians.He was in a rupture with the past magisterium of the Church like the popes.Now here am I endorsing Vatican Council II(unlike the bishop) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and an ecumenism of return( unlike the professor of theology) and neither can either of the two say that I am in heresy.

Fastiggi and Sanborn were interpreting Vatican Council II when one accepted the non traditional conclusion and the other rejected it.Both inferred invisible people were visible.

Fastiggi and Sanborn are critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney. They don't know that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case decides how they interpret Vatican Council II.

For me the Holy Office was wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.So Vatican Council II does not become a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.For Fastiggi,Sanborn and the two popes, it is the opposite.

I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and affirm 'the past ecclesiology of the Church with an ecumenism of return' since Vatican Council II (with Fr.Leonard Feeney being correct) is not a rupture.While the two popes also attend the Novus Ordo Mass and reject the past ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. The  baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to known exceptions,visible people saved outside the Church or they would not be exceptions.

Among the traditionalists Louie Verrecchio criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass and is not a Feeneyite on EENS.For him BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.The Holy Office was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was 'condemned'.This is the official SSPX website explanation which is the opposite of the 2012 General Chapter Statement on EENS.

This invisible people are visible reasoning is  the foundation for the new ecclesiology.So Verrecchio attends the Tridentine Rite Mass affirming the new ecclesiology.He has also received a dispensation at a Novus Ordo Mass to marry a non Christian.This was possible with the new ecclesiology based on salvation outside the Church.There was known salvation outside the Church for the bishop and he decided his wife did not need to convert into the Church.

Now he criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass and attends the Latin Mass with an ecclesiology which is supported by the two popes, and which is a rupture with the Latin Mass in the 16th century, for example.

Since for Louie Verrecchio there is known salvation outside the Church( with visible BOD, BOB and I.I), LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church. He may say that he does not know any such person but this is what he infers with his New Theology which is magisterial and was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre.So he rejects Feeneyite EENS and also puts aside the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.He does this unknowingly.It comes with the new ecclesiology.

Then when he reads the old encyclicals the pendulum once again swings towards the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.Once again he says outside the Church there is no  salvation but still understands LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) as being an exception.This is the confusion of many Catholics.It is built into the new ecclesiology.

It is the same with the traditionalist blogger David Domet.He will state that he believes in outside the Church there is no salvation and also being saved in invincible ignorance as if the two are connected.Being saved in invincible ignorance is relevant to the dogma EENS as an exception or he would not have mentioned it.This is how he also interprets the statements of popes on this issue, even when the popes,in the text, do  not state that they refer to known people saved as such.

It reminds me of Mother Angelica citing the popes on outside the Church there is no salvation and then the local bishop in the EWTN diocese calls attention to the new ecclesiology based on known exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I.So there was a new policy at EWTN on salvation.

Mother Angelica had to remove those quotations from the popes since the  new ecclesiology based on the irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 replaced it.

It is the same with traditionalist Ann Barnhardt who says she affirms outside the Church there is no salvation but is not a Feeneyite.

With the traditionalists and liberals accepting known salvation outside the Church and this being part of the Declarations with the Orthodox Christians and Lutherans for Pope Benedict, Pope Francis has issued a moto proprio which will name future saints who are not Catholics.This will be done theologically with the new ecclesiology.The 'unknown- known people' saved outside the Church.The premise is important.Even if it is false.

Remember Bishop Bruno Forte when he quipped that Pope Francis is a real Jesuit.He believes that if we can change the premise we can change the conclusion and no one will know.

So like Louie Verrecchio and David Domet the two popes believe there is known salvation outside the Church( this is their false premise), possibilities are real people for them( premise again ) and so there can be a new way of looking at Vatican Council II, the past ecclesiology, ecumenism,EENS etc- all with a new conclusion.

But how can possibilities be real people?

Where are the real people saved outside the Catholic Church in November 2017?

There are none. But this is how the liberals and traditionalists reason.

So now the two popes affirm magisterial documents and their conclusion is different from mine since their premises are different.We are all in the same Catholic Church of 2017.

-Lionel Andrades