I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and the 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There is no mistake in the letter of Pope Pius XII. Feeneyism is condemned by the Church. You are a Feeneyist. It means you like a doctrine which is heretical. You put yourself outside the Church. Considering that Pius XII is the last great Pope who defended Tradition, it means being also against Tradition...I think you misunderstand the real sense of the Letter of the Holy Office.-Gabreille ( edited)

Lionel:

I affirm invisible for us ' a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II). You, the SSPX and supporters of the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney affirm a visible for us ' ray of Truth.
I affirm  invisible ' seeds of the Word' (Ad Gentes 11, Vatican Council II).It is hypothetical and a probablity. You and the others affirm a visible-for-us saved with 'seeds of the Word'.

I affirm an invisible for us being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church', for a non Catholic.It is implicit and accepted in theory. You the traditionalists and liberals affirm a visible for us being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'.

I affirm an invisible for us being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II) . You and millions of other Catholics affirm a visible for us in the flesh, cases of non Catholics, saved in invincible ignorance, who have not heard the Gospel through no fault of their own.You allegedly can see and know them on earth.

I affirm that being saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' are invisible for us in 2014.For you they are visible.For you this is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they have to be physically visible cases for you.
I affirm an invisible for us baptism of desire.For you the baptism of

desire is explicit and known in the present times in individual cases.
 These physically seen cases in 2014, for you,  are exceptions to the
 literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.
Leonard Feeney.So you can see the exceptions? You can name them ?
I affirm all salvation mentioned or alluded to in Vatican Council II and the Letter  of the Holy Office as being invisible for us on earth.They are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are not exceptions or relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.These are possibilities accepted in faith but they are not explicit exceptions.Hypothtical cases cannot be exceptions.

I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire. I am not denying invisible for us baptism of desire as a possibility.I am denying the existence of an explicit for us baptism of desire.
For me Vatican Council II is traditional.Since AG 7 is in agreement with

extra ecclesiam nulla salus and NA 2, AG 11,LG 8,LG 16,UR 3 etc are
 not visible to us.So  they are not physically known exceptions.

For me the Holy Office 1949 has made a mistake in assuming that
implicit desire ( baptism of desire) and being saved in invincible
ignorance refer to visible cases.Then the Holy Office wrongly concluded that  these physically visible cases are a known exception to the literal and centuries old interpretation of the dogma on salvation, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So I cannot be called a heretic ( on Catholic traditionalist forums) since I am not rejecting  extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.Neither am I rejecting the baptism of desire ( implicit). Implicit baptism of desire is not a physical exception to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water. It does not violater the Principle of Non Contradiction.

I affirm the literal interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and for me there is no salvation outside the Church.Those who reject this position are irrational, non traditional and heretical.

I am correct with implicit baptism of desire and the Letter of the Holy Office is wrong and irrational with explicit for us baptism of desire.It is common knowledge that the dead are not visible. This is a fact of life and not theology.
I am correct and rational with implicit for us salvation in Vatican Council and the traditionalists and liberals are incorrect and irrational with alleged explicit for us salvation, visible for us in real lifei.e being able to  see the dead.

For me Vatican Council II (without the inference of the dead-saved being visible) has a hermeneutic of continuity with no ambiguities.For others Vatican Council II(with the irrational inference) has a hermeneutic  of rupture with ambiguities and contradictions.

For me AG 7, Vatican Council II ( all need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation) does not contradict LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance).Vatican Council II(without the inference) does not contradict itself. For the others, AG 7 contradicts LG 16 ( being saved visibly in invincible ignorance).Vatican Council II(with the irrational premise) contradicts itself.For me doctrines and dogmas are coherent and 'non-developing' for others doctrines are either pre or post Vatican Council II.


Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 do not criticize Cardinal Cushing the Archbishop of Boston. It does not say that there is no salvation outside the Church and that those saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not visible to us.


Instead the Holy Office has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney after inferring that the baptism of desire is explicit for us  in real life and so is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This subtle error was not corrected by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the latter who correctly affirmed the dogma on salvation with no exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades