The Lefebvrists are in a doctrinal mess and they call themselves traditionalists.

 We can affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. It would be rational and supporting Tradition (EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc ).Or we can reject Vatican Council II, like the Lefebvrists,interpreting it with the false premise and then return to Tradition, without Vatican Council II( Cushingite or Feeneyite).The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) would be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

It means for the Lefebvrsits, and the liberals, since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS they are also exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which states all need the Catholic faith for salvation.So Archbishop Carlo Vigano contradicts this Creed.

Since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS for the Lefebvrists they are also exceptions to 24 Q and 27 Q in the Catechism of Pope Paul X.

Since BOD( LG 14) and I.I (LG 16) are a rejection of the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc for Vigano, Kwasniewski and the Lefebvrists, they are objective examples of salvation outside the Church. This contradicts John 3:5( necessity of baptism for salvation). It also suggests there is salvation in pagan religions whose members do not affirm the First Commandment like Catholics.

 

The Lefebvrists are in a doctrinal mess and they call themselves traditionalists. -Lionel Andrades