Archbishop Muller and Di Noia identify the premise of the visible dead in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

The SSPX is not obliged to accept something which is implied and is not part of the text of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX is not obliged to accept that there are known exceptions to the dogma when no one at the Vatican can name a single case in 2012.

Before the secular media picks up this implied error of the Council CDF/Ecclesia Dei could make the correction.The error is known to many via the Internet.

Over time traditionalists will be asserting themself when they know there is no explicit- implicit salvation.This is common sense. We cannot see the dead. It is not a theology or personal opinion.It is not a philosophy, though the means of looking at the issue is philosophical or intellectual i.e we cannot see the dead saved on earth.   The Archbishops at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) do not seem aware of the false premise which pervades Vatican Council II.

Example. Non Catholics can be saved with the 'seeds of the word'(AG 11) and there are personally known cases. Since they are explicitly known in 2012 its a contradiction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

Similarly, non Catholics can be saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR). There are visible cases today. They then imply that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma.

The Council text does not state that these cases are explicit or an exception to the dogma. It is all implied.

It is implied that those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience are exceptions to the dogma. The text of LG does not state it.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller, the CDF,Prefect implies that invincible ignorance is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (National Catholic Register).This is the theory of the dead saved and visible which  is used in an interpretation of Vatican Council II.This false premise results in a modernist interpretation of the Council which the SSPX is rejecting.

Ecclesia Dei needs to identify this error for the SSPX reconciliation.

The SSPX should not be  obliged to accept something which is implied and is not part of the text of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX is not obliged to accept that there are known exceptions to the dogma when no one at the Vatican can name a single case in 2012.They can only imply and assume.-Lionel Andrades