Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know that Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with the left hand side column ?
For Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Michael Voris and Robert Sungenis Vatican Council II is 'ambigous' since they are using the right hand side column; explicit for us, known in reality,visible in the flesh,defacto,objective.
With the left hand side column Vatican Council II is in harmony with St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and St. Francis of Assisi on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is also in agreement with the Nicene and Athanasius Creed.
With the right hand side column Vatican Council II contradicts itself. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Lumen Gentium 16 says those in invincible ignorance can be saved implying there are known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7. The same confusion would be there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio etc.
The hermeneutic of continuity or rupture depends on the hermeneutic with the left hand or right hand side column.
During the Vatican-SSPX talks, initiated by Pope Benedict XVI, both sides were using the right hand side column.
Ecclesia Dei's Archbishop Di Noi and Monisgnor Guido Pozzo are liberals since they use the right hand side column. They may be traditional on other aspects of the Catholic Faith.
For full canonical status the Vatican expects the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side column.The SSPX seems unaware of there being two options in the interpretation of the Council, one rational and traditional and the other irrational and a break with extra eclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.
They all interpret Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 using the right hand side column.
They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney since they assume there are known, explicit, visible, de facto, exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If they used the left hand side column they would support Fr.Leonard Feeney. Vatican Council II would be traditional on other religions and Christian communities and churches.Religious communities would not reject the teachings of their founders on the subject of salvation.
What makes you a liberal or a traditionalist is not if you accept or reject Vatican Council II but if you are using the left hand side or the right hand side column in the interpretation of the Council or the Catechism.
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf has written that the Vatican could grant the SSPX canonical status 'with the stroke of a pen'. It seems that the Vatican has simply to announce that all salvation referred to in the Council, has to be interpreted with the left hand side column. So Vatican Council II would not contradict the traditional teaching on inter religious dialogue and ecumenism.Vatican Council II would support the SSPX's traditional position.
With the Council affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus Catholics have a duty to proclaim the dogma in a secular state.Dignitatis Humane,Vatican Council II refers to the freedom of religious worship, in a state with a secular Constitution and the right for Catholics to proclaim their faith.
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit or explicit for us.
hypothetical or known in reality.
invisible or visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle or defacto ( in fact ).
subjective or objective.
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson has said that the Society of St.Pius X must know that adherence to Vatican Council II and the Catechism does not put them at odds with Tradition.
REDEMPTORIST PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF NOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUShttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/redemptorist-priest-says-vatican.html#links
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links