ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS A MODERNIST FOR INTERPRETING VATICAN CONCIL II WITH THE EXPLICIT,VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Council does not contradict the Society of St.Pius ( SSPX) position on other religions unless it is assumed that the dead saved are visible to us.Indications are that the Archbishop made this error.

Bishop Richard Williamson comes across as a modernist for implying the baptism of desire is visible to us and so his interpretation of Vatican Council II is modernism.With this false premise the Council has to be in error.In itself the Council is not modernist.

Similarly Bishop Bernard Fellay is a modernist because of his interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the visible dead theory , which supposely  contradict Tradition.

The clue is in Vatican Council II.Since they believe that the Council contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, they must be assuming that those who are dead and saved are known to us. So these cases are exceptions.

With this false premise of the visible dead, the Council has to be interpreted as modernist with errors.A false premise must produce errors.

If for them Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition it is because they assume, those saved with a good conscience or invincible ignorance, are visible to us.Since they are visible and known to them, for the bishops they are exceptions.LG 16 is modernist for them.

This has been the modernist interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The SSPX bishops were also modernists in their understanding of Vatican Council II and other religions.

The Council without the false premise affirms the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.Vatican Council II is traditonal. -Lionel Andrades