Traditionalists who have been denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus do not want to consider a Vatican Council II which is pro Fr.Leonard Feeney

It is becoming clearer for many Catholics, that Vatican Council II is pro extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they do not want a Vatican Council II in which they have to affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation.For instance Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro in Rome would not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He would say there are exceptions to the dogma.He would agree that there are no known exceptions to the dogma. But he was not going to affirm the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.

He would say Vatican Council II is ambigous. It has statements for and against Tradition. Of course for him the Council would contradict  Fr.Leonard Feeney.If he would say in public that all non Catholics need to enter the Church to avoid Hell he would be cautioned and may be penalized by the Vicariate in Rome.

 

Now we realize that it is Vatican Council II itself which  says 'all need faith and baptism for salvation' (AG 7) and 'all need to enter the Church as through a door '(AG 7).So it is the Council which is saying extra ecclesiam nulla salus. And we do not know any one on earth saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel, or anyone condemned who did not enter the Church even after being informed with the necessary knowledge. So these cases cannot be used an excuse to deny the dogma and AG 7. Neither are being saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' or 'elements of sanctification and truth' known to us in particular cases for them to be exceptions to the dogma.

So what will Monisgnor Barreiro who offers the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass, do now? Will he be able to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public ? Or will he continue to discuss Vatican Council II assuming there are exceptions to the dogma even when he knows there are no exceptions. Would Vatican Council II be considered anti Semitic etc?

Dr.John Rao, New Catholic  at Rorate Caeili and the SSPX (USA/Canada) are among so many traditionalists who were denying the dogma on exclusive salvation, will they now accept a Vatican Council II which is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney. They would use Fr.Leonard Feeney as an excuse for denying the dogma but now it is asked : if Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted or rejected the baptism of desire what difference does it make to the dogma. It is irrelevant. Since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in 2014. These cases would have to be visible and known to us for them to be exceptions to the teaching that all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. 

For Michael Voris, Robert Sungenis and so many apologists Vatican Council II was ambigous. When they realize that the Council is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and ecumenism will they support the new understanding of  Vatican Council II ? Will they affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus just Fr.Leonard Feeney and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Centers in the USA?

 

Vatican Council II is pure Feeneyism. We could see a whole new group of Feeneyites in traditionalists and others who in the past thought Feeneyism was a heresy.

 

There is no discussion on this subject since there so many traditionalists who do not want to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public. They do not want to discuss the issue of Vatican Council II emerging traditional if all salvation referred to in the Council is considered invisible for us.

-Lionel Andrades