SSPX Superior General addresses another conference oblivious of his error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Creeds and the rest of Tradition

I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being hypothetical and subjective and they interpret LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Church. Their premise is what is invisible is visible and mine is what is invisible is invisible only.

So their inference is that visible cases of LG 8 etc are objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For me they are not exceptions. Since invisible people cannot be visible exceptions.

For them Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition (EENS, Athanasius Creed etc) since there are objective cases of LG 8 etc. For me Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition since there are no objective exceptions in 1065-2023.

For me Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Does AG 7 support Tradition? While hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are not practical exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council.

So for them there is a separation with the Magisterial over the centuries and for me there is continuity.

They have changed the doctrine on salvation and I have maintained it.- Lionel Andrades