Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will not admit they were wrong all these years

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (MICM) are not issuing a statement which says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2013.If they do so, they would be admitting that they were wrong all these years and so were their many supporters.
 

 

The SSPX was clearly wrong  in interpreting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

 
Even though the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation they assume that in the present times the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions. Both groups assume that Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) is a known exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.Vatican Council II is a break with the past. They have never said that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA, would also say that if there was only one exception, it was a negation of the dogma and the need for all to be baptized with water. This indicates that they assume there are known exceptions in the present times. 

Both groups cannot issue a simple statement  saying there are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma in 2013.If they did it would be helpful for many Catholics  who are confused. 

Both groups would have to interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 differently, from the past. Since implicit desire  and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to 'the dogma' and the 'infallible statement'.

 

 It would also mean that LG 16 (invincible ignorance), AG 11( seeds of the Word), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) are not exceptions, known or unknown, to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.A possibility cannot be an exception, known or unknown.
 

Since neither of the two groups of traditionalists can name any exception in 2013; they cannot name someone who does not need to convert into the Catholic Church this year to go to Heaven and avoid Hell,  they could clarify- there are no known exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
  
This would mean Catholics can affirm the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. They could do it  along with being saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance.They are compatible.

Every religious community in the Catholic Church could proclaim the traditional interpretation of the thrice- defined dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They could do this  along with the possibility of being saved in invincible ignorance etc.

 If one group choses to accept implicit desire followed by the baptism of desire , as being called the baptism of desire, it would not contradict the dogma. If the other group chooses to accept implicit desire, without the baptism of water, it would not contradict the dogma.It would not be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.

It is not theology but a simple philosophical observation that we cannot see the dead on earth. We cannot see those saved in Heaven with implicit desire etc. So they cannot  be exceptions to the need for all to visibly convert  into the Church for salvation.

 

Based on reason, the SSPX and MICM need to clarify that there are no known exceptions to the dogma on salvation in 2013.They would not be saying this as theology, but in a philosophical, empirical sense.

 

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have Always held theologically that  there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This has been their continuous and admirable position.They could extend this thinking to Vatican Council II. Also tell us that being saved in invincible ignorance etc is irrelevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.There are no known cases to prove Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong.Their apologetics is presently based on theology.They need to bring out the philosophical aspect of this issue.

-Lionel Andrades