Why cannot you say that the SSPX made a doctrinal mistake ?

Indignus famulus” “Every separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological HERESY in principle. …there can be no truth without life and no life without truth.

=========

CraigW:
Would you say the SSPX is wrong here ? A theoretical possibility ( baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) is considered a defacto exception to the dogma EENS.The SSPX USA is following the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htmhttp://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

Craig in theory has accepted that there are no exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation and there are no Church documents before 1949 which say that these cases are known to us or are explicit exceptions to Tradition.No Church document! So in ‘practice’ why does he not say that the SSPX has made a factual error in the two links above ?
Cardinal Muller calls this heresy.

I ask Lynda, can you quote any pope or saint before 1949 who said that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma ?
No answer. Why does she not say that she does not know of any case and there is no such case before ?
Instead she will in’ practise’ support the SSPX error.
Cardinal Muller calls this the separation ….

Why does Quo Vadis Petre not admit that the doctrine of the baptism of desire refers to a hypothetical case ? Is this too difficult?
Would he then have to say that the SSPX made an error ? And of course he does not want to ? Another case of separation of… by Catholics who do not use their real name to proclaim the faith.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/dialogue/#comment-27458