Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake philosophically?

I was speaking today afternoon with Father Mauro Tranquillo the Italian theologian of the Society of St.Pius X. We spoke in English.

I realized during our conversation that we need to see the issue of the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston and Vatican Council II philosophically.

For something to be an exception it needs to be different and it needs to exist.If it does not exist it cannot be an exception.

The baptism of desire does not exist in our reality in 2014.So it cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation; extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I asked Fr.Mauro  if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney.He did not think so.

So for him the baptism of desire is an exception.Since for him every one does not need the baptism of water for salvation.

It is also an exception  since it means these cases of the baptism of desire are visible and known to him in 2014.The deceased, are visible to Fr.Mauro ? They would have to be visible for them to be exceptions to all needing to convert in to the Catholic Church in 2014 for salvation.

If the Letter condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney then it means, philosophically, Pope Pius XII could see or know exceptions.They existed for him. He could see the dead!.

Similarly for Fr.Mauro  Tranquillo , Lumen Gentium 8, 'elements of sanctification and truth', in other religions would be an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation.Since these cases  exist. De facto they are known. So they contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Every one does not need to be a visible member of the Church; every one does not need the baptism of water for salvation.There are known exceptions in 2014 of people saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth', for the Italian priest.

Vatican Council II would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since the Council for him is referring to definite, known cases and not to in principle, in theory,possibilities.

When the Society of St.Pius X refers to exceptions to the dogma they imply that they can philosophically and empirically, see the deceased  in Heaven ( saved in invincible ignorance etc) and also on earth.

This is absurd!

If there is an apple in a box of oranges the apple is an exception since it exists there .

In principle cases are not exceptions since in reality they do not exist. What is  accepted in our imagination is not an exception, since in reality it does not exist.An image of the apple in my mind is not a reality in the box.

The thought of the apple has not made the apple an exception.

We cannot physically, personally, while on the streets, see the dead saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, 'elements of sanctification and truth','imperfect communion with the Church' etc.

So there are, philosophically speaking, no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus  as Fr.Leonard Feeney understood it.

Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) supports the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma, when it  affirms 'faith and baptism' being necessary for all.Members of Christian communities and churches do not have Catholic faith. Though they have baptism. So according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) they are oriented to Hell without Catholic Faith, which includes the Sacraments and the traditional faith and moral teachings.Without 'faith and baptism' the majority of people on earth are oriented to Hell.This is the teaching of Vatican Council II.

Vatican Council II has not mentioned any exception, unless philosophically, one considers in principle, hypothetical cases, which are not visible in our reality, as being visible and known. This would be shaking hands with ghosts and spirits.

Other religions are not paths to salvation since they have neither faith nor baptism among their members.

Those who are saved 'through Jesus and the Church' in other religions do not exist in our reality. They are unknown to us and known only to God.

Those who are saved since they did not know the Gospel 'through no fault of their own' and lived a good life, do not exist in our reality. They do not exist for us.They are in Heaven.

Those who are condemned since they 'knew that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ', do not exist in our reality for them to be exceptions.

Those who are saved through 'the good and holy things' in other religions  are known only to God. So they are probabilities but not exceptions. They are irrelevant for the dogma on exclusive salvation.What does not exist cannot be relevant.

So one can offer the Tridentine Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican Council II is compatible with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The liturgy does not create ecclesiology or theology. It is philosophically assuming there are known exceptions, the dead being visible to us on earth, which creates a non traditional ecclesiology and theology. It is the premise which creates the theology.

We can affirm a traditional Vatican Council along with a 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, if there is no irrational interpretation. In the Letter of the Holy Office implicit desire is not an exception to 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching'. If it is an exception it would be saying that Pope Pius XII could see the dead now in Heaven.
And if there are no known exceptions then Pope Pius XIII supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine when he referred to 'the dogma'. The text of the dogma does not mention  any exceptions.

Since Fr.Mauro Tranquilo says there are exceptions he is implying that he can see the dead. This is irrational.We can have either a rational or irrational interpretation of the Council and the Letter of the Holy Office. He, like the rest of the SSPX, has chosen the irrational one.
So the fault is not with Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office.The issue is can one see ghosts ?!

-Lionel Andrades