The baptism of desire(BOD) has nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) yet this is beyond Tantumblogo and commentators on the Dallas blog (Columbe on Fr.Feeney). 1
Tantumblogo is a Cushingite who attends the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) and interprets the baptism of desire(BOD) as being an exception to EENS(Feeneyite).
While some of the commentators on(Columbe on Fr.Feeney)
are supporters of Feeneyism according to the St.Benedict Centers.They reject BOD as an exception to EENS,and they too attend the TLM.
So we have two groups of traditionalists who use a different theology and attend the TLM.
Their doctrines will also change with Vatican Council II.
So there is no unity of doctrine and theology at the TLM.I too could attend the TLM and unlike them affirm,Vatican Council II(Feeneyite), support the St. Benedict Centers on EENS(Feeneyite) and reject Tantumblogo on EENS and Vatican,which is Cushingite for him.It is the same Mass and we are all Catholics.
So when Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and Pope Benedict refer to liturgy as being everything, it is because they have to accept the false theology and reject EENS (Feeneyite) and Vatican Council(Feeneyite).This is how Bishop Morlino also offers the TLM in the Diocese of Madison, USA.
So every once in a while they churn out the usual stuff-save the liturgy and save the world( even with false theologies and doctrines).
They do not approve EENS and they approve the wedding Mass between a Protestant and Catholic.It is a Sacrament for them and not adultery.
The problem originates with them not knowing that the baptism of desire(BOD) has nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It definitely was not,and nor,is an exception to EENS.-Lionel Andrades
1.
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/coulombe-on-fr-feeney/
Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not state that Vatican Council II is fundamentalist.Even Catholic conservatives, traditionalists and La Stampa journalists are not aware that Vatican Council II in itself is fundamentalist.
Why is Vatican Council II not fundamentalist for La Stampa?
It is because their leftist journalists infer that hypothetical cases are explicit in 2016.Then with this irrational premise they interpret Vatican Council II.They get a non traditional and heretical conclusion.In this way Vatican Council II is not 'fundamentalist'.It is a rupture with Tradition.
Like me they could assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.So then hypothetical LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc would not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
There would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.
The Council would be saying there has to be an ecumenism of return and all non Christians need to formally convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). This would be terribly fundamentalistic.
Instead Archbishop Pozzo like the leftist journalists at Vatican Insider,interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and conclusion. So the SSPX is fundamentalist for accepting this interpretation of Vatican Council II with the premise and then rejecting the Council.They reject the Council when it is a rupture with Tradition.
While La Stampa, CDF are not fundamentalist since they also use the same false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and they accept the conclusion.