Archbishop Lefebvre was a modernist : some examples

Archbishop Lefebvre irrationally interpreted the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).He wrongly assumed invisible people were visible examples of salvation outside the Church.BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible yet he believed that they were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), so in other words they were visible to be exceptions.For him BOD,BOB and I.I  were examples of salvation outside the Church.So everybody needed to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation for him, except for those saved in BOD,BOB and I.I.  How can people who do not exist be exceptions to the dogma EENS? Where are the visible and known cases of people saved for example, in 2018 outside the Church? The popes and saints knew that BOD, BOB and I.I were only hypothetical cases.But Archbishop Lefebvre did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney and the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.It was the same with Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI.

HE REJECTED EENS USING AN IRRATIONALITY

Archbishop Lefebvrist was a modernist to reject the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS by assuming invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to EENS.The Holy Office had made a mistake and Pope Pius XII overlooked it.

Since invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I became objective exceptions to the need for all to be members of the Catholic Church he contradicted the Catechism of Pope Pius X.This Catechism says all need to  be members of the Church for salvation with no exception.He contradicted the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils.It  did not mention any exception.

Things get worse.

QUANTA CURA,MYSTICI CORPORIS  CONTRADICTS THE CATECHISM OF PIUS X 

For him invisible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the Catechisms, Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura etc became objective exceptions to the dogma EENS and also the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Church.So for him, Pope Pius X  would be contradicting the past ecclesiology of the Church.But this is not true.Since for Pope Pius X, BOD, BOB and I.I referred to invisible people. This is something obvious. It is common sense.

If BOD, BOB and I.I were simply invisible cases for him they could not be objective exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Church.Upon this old ecclesiology depended an ecumenism of return, traditional mission doctrine etc.All this has now been put away in a kind of apostasy.

MODERNIST ON VATICAN COUNCIL II

He was a modernist on Vatican Council II and EENS.Since invisible cases referred to in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, were visible and so Vatican Council II contradicted the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiology.So he wrongly rejected Vatican Council II.He could not interpret Vatican Council II, like me, with LG 8 etc referring to unknown people in the present times.Vatican Council II also had to become a rupture for him with the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition. So he rejected the only version of Vatican Council II he knew which was obviously a rupture with Tradition.He did not realize that he had mistaken hypothetical cases of LG 8 etc as being objective and known people saved outside the Church. There are no such cases for us human beings.So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.

A possibility or speculation with good will cannot be a concrete exception to EENS.No one saw a St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water. St. Ambrose could not see his friend the Emperor Valentianian in Heaven without the baptism of water.We can hope they are in Heaven but not posit them as objective exceptions to the dogma EENS.Exceptions have to be objective and real.
In a box of oranges an apple is an exception since it is different but also because it exists there in that box.If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception.
Zero cases of something are not an exception to EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.
BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS says Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson. He is supported by Fr. Stefano Visintin osb,  Benedictine theologian and scientist, and the Rector at the University of St.Anselm, Rome.

ABP. LEFEBVRE SUPPORTED THE NEW THEOLOGY

Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests,sisters and lay members,like the liberals and Masons, was a modernist and so was Pope Pius XII.

Fr.Leonard Feeney was teaching orthodoxy and the Holy Office 1949 brought a theological innovation into the Church.It was done with an irrationality.This has become the New Theology.

For me unknown cases of LG 8, LG 16 etc in 2018 are not exceptions to EENS nor are invisible for us cases of BOD, BOB and I.I  exceptions to EENS. The Catechism of Pope Pius X is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 WAS A RUPTURE WITH TRADITION

But Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter was a rupture with the popes on EENS. This is schism.  

Since BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation , there was a new understanding of the Nicene Creed. It became 'I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, desire, blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc, and they all exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'. 
FIRST CLASS HERESY
This is first class heresy.
So a Profession of Faith is today made with false doctrines because of the New Theology.The Oath Against Modernism becomes meaningless.Modernism is the norm.

For Archbishop Lefebvre the problem was the liturgy.For me the real problem is ecclesiology. Traditional theology was derailed with invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I being mistaken as being known people saved outside the Church. Then the same irrational reasoning was applied to LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II.So the New Theology today is outside the Church there is salvation. This is false. There is no known salvation outside the Church. I cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Church without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).

-Lionel Andrades