Monday, March 31, 2014

The SSPX do not deny any doctrine of the Catholic faith – so please name what exactly these ‘heretical preconceptions’ are ?

 (Note: All the comments have returned on Protect the Pope. There was a misunderstanding.)
Gary:
The SSPX do not deny any doctrine of the Catholic faith – so please name what exactly these ‘heretical preconceptions’ are ?

 
Lionel:
Gary the SSPX assumes that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The SSPX assumes that the baptism of desire is visible to us in real life and so is an exception to Tradition.
The baptism of desire can be accepted as a possibility and always invisible and implicit for us human beings. However for the SSPX it as visible and explicit for us. So this becomes a contradiction of the Catechism of Pope Pius X (27 Q) which says there is no salvation outside the Church.
For the SSPX Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc since they assume that LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.
This is a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and a change in the Nicene Creed to “I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin".
-Lionel Andrades

Once again all the comments on 'Lionel Andrades and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' are there on the Protect the Pope Blog.

Lionel AndradesYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Michael B Rooke
It might be noted
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
(1997)
PRELIMINARY NOTE
The study of the theme “Christianity and the World Religions” was adopted for study by a large majority of the members of the International Theological Commission. …..The present text was approved “in forma specifica” by vote of the commission on 30 September 1996 and was submitted to its president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has given his approval for its publication.
Lionel:
They unknowingly used the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.
8. The fundamental question is this: Do religions mediate salvation to their members? There are those who give a negative reply to this question; even more, some do not even see any sense in raising it. Others give an affirmative response, which in turn gives rise to other questions: Are such mediations of salvation autonomous or do they convey the salvation of Jesus Christ? It is a question therefore of defining the status of Christianity and of religions as sociocultural realities in their relation to human salvation. This question should not be confused with that of the salvation of individuals, Christian or otherwise. Due account has not always been taken of this distinction.
Lionel:
We need to keep Vatican Council II (AG 7) before us. It says all need faith and baptism. We also need to keep the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of Pope Pius X before us.Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church there is no salvation.
We do not know any case in 2014 which contradicts this traditional teaching.So Lumen Gentium (16), Unitatis Redintigratio (3), Nostra Aetate (2)etc cannot be exceptions to the magisterial documents cited here.
9. Many attempts have been made to classify the different theological positions adopted toward this problem. Let us see some of these classifications: Christ against religions, in religions, above religions, beside religions. An ecclesiocentric universe or exclusive Christology; a Christocentric universe or inclusive Christology; a theocentric universe with a normative Christology; a theocentric universe with a non-normative Christology. Some theologians adopt the tripartite division exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, which is seen as parallel to another: ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism. Given that we have to choose one of these classifications in order to continue our reflection, we will follow the latter, even though we might complement it with the others if necessary.
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).
Lionel:
Here it is assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit,visble to us exceptions to the literal nterpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We have the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error here. It is assumed that the the baptism of desire etc is visible and this was the view of Pope Pius XII. In other words the pope did not know that we do not know of any such case and so it cannot be an exception to Tradition.
True there is ‘a possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church eg.G 16 etc) but these are hypothetical cases for us, only possibility. They are not defacto known in the present times so how can they be exceptions to traditional exclusivist ecclesiocentrism? To assume that the dead-saved are exceptions is an objective error.
11. Christocentrism accepts that salvation may occur in religions, but it denies them any autonomy in salvation on account of the uniqueness and universality of the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. This position is undoubtedly the one most commonly held by Catholic theologians, even though there are differences among them. It attempts to reconcile the universal salvific will of God with the fact that all find their fulfillment as human beings within a cultural tradition that has in the corresponding religion its highest expression and its ultimate foundation.
Lionel:
The reference is to liberal theologians some in dissent, Fr.John Hicks etc.
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).
Lionel:
In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII does not say that these cases are explicit for us, visible to the naked eye for them to be exceptions extra ecclesiam nulla salus.These cases could exist and being implicit for us are compatible with the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine/dogma. It referred to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. It faulted Fr.Leonard Feeney for disobedience/discipline and not for heresy.
If he was condemned for heresy it would mean that the Holy Office had made an objective mistake assuming there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69). In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
Lionel:
‘The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas)..’
Either way it would be known only to God. Are you implying that this is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was traditionally known?
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.
Lionel:
‘those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation’ and those in invincible ignorance are known only to God.We do not know any such case in 2014. Are you implying that this is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII…,
Lionel:
Yes. Vatican Council II is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, St.Francis of Assisi, St.Anthony Marie Clare, St.Maximillian Kolbe …
  • George D
    The SSPX are schismatic because they do not accept the second Vatican council as part of the church’s magisterium, and they believe Vatican 2 is not consistent with tradition because they interpret doctrine through the lens of heretical preconceptions.
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      George D
      The SSPX accept Vatican Council II as a historical reality. Bishop Bernard Fellay has said that they accept 95% of the Council.Similar to the Vatican Curia and the Left they interpret Vatican Council II with a factual error, the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error. So Vatican Council II, for all, is a break with the past.
      Witout the CJFE there will be no heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II.
      I don’t think they consider themself to be in schism.
  • Sparxz
    Really glad to see this blog, get involved in this discussion, as it is important, and increasingly important,
    as it touches deeply on the identity of the Catholic Church and the true mission of the Catholic Church which is to save souls
    in Christ through the Church. This has little chance of being published in the so-called Catholic Papers with fair treatment.
    Many in Norvos Ordoism and Traditionalist Catholics misunderstand Sacramental grace, and actual Grace.
    A person can seriously betray Christ even after receiving Sacramental Grace eg Judas at the last Supper.
    the Anglicans thought they could keep the Mass and dump the Authority of the Church and good faith.
    While the Church has always taught that even before Christ came the first time, that God was transmitting
    his actual grace into the world to bring about the miracle of Faith as first demonstrated by God’s relationship
    established in Abraham.
    The purpose of the Actual Grace is bring a Soul into Sacramental Grace(while still being in the world), and from Sacramental Grace
    in the world, to eternal Worship of God in the Heavenly part of the same Catholic(Universal) Church.
    Misunderstandings on this subject are as common today as they were when Christ came himself to put us on the right track.
    As St Paul says we should welcome the purpose and teaching of first coming, so we do not dread the second coming(which will not be for teaching!).
  • Lynda
    Clearly, A. 29 is not stated in terms of an exception to, but rather in terms of a more detailed refinement or explanation of, A. 27. A. 27 speaks of the Church per se, whereas A. 29 speaks of the “body” and “soul” of the Church, and states that if certain conditions subsist, including on the one hand, baptism outside of the Church or on the other hand, “baptism of desire”, in respect of a particular person, that person will attain salvation on the basis of unity with the “soul” of the Church, as opposed to the “body” of the Church (through which one is united in baptism). Without arguing the merits of A.29, it is clear that it is a rational and objective principle on its face.
    As to verifiabity in the case of a particular person, the conditions are not as easily verified in the case of a person to whom A. 29 applies as to a person who has been baptised in the Catholic Church. However, one can imagine circumstances whereby the satisfaction of the conditions could be objectively verified in the case of a particular person. It must be noted that even if a baptised Catholic person appears (to his confessor) to have made a full and sincere confession immediately before his death, it cannot be “known” with certainty that that person will attain salvation, as, for instance, the confessor may have been deceived. Only in certain very special cases does the Church claim to “know” that a specific individual has attained heaven – where the conditions for canonisation have been formally verified to have been met.
    Steve Martin’s book “Will Many be Saved?” is a good discussion of those who have not been baptised in the Church. It is reasonable to assert that it is much more difficult for a person to be saved outside of the body of the Church (through no fault of his own) than a person baptised within the Church (who has the graces of confession, the Eucharist, etc.).
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Lynda
      How would you relate to concrete cases,for example, those having a vocation to the religious life in England?
      Would they have to accept that A. 29 contradicts A. 27 of the Catechism of Pope Pius X?
      Would they have to accept that Ad Gentes 7 is contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16?
      Here is Ad Gentes 7:
      Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
      Lumen Gentium 16
      Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16.
      So would Vatican Council II contradict itself ? AG 7 would be contradicted by LG 16 ?
      Would vocations to the religious life in England have to accept this ? Is this what you also believe?
      Would it mean that young vocations would have to claim that they can see the dead-saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) who are exceptions to all needing ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation in 2014?
  • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]
    ewww — careful, Missus Deacon, with Mister Andrades …
    Not only has Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus been interpreted since Antiquity as the doctrine that there is only ONE Afterlife, ONE Heaven, and ONE destination for Salvation (contrary to a widespread Heresy when it was first formulated, and contrary in even present times to the doctrines of mormonism), but more particularly, Mister Andrades is an extremist literalist (and nuisance-maker) whose personal views cannot be held up as being orthodox. From long experience with him at the Catholicism Pure And Simple blog.
    Handle With Care, Missus D !!!
    • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]
      … because the doctrine concerns the Church of the Christ in the Afterlife, rather than the Catholic Church Militant.
      BTW :
      It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven
      Objectively, this is a formal heresy, denying all saintly Apparitions, including those of the Holy Virgin Saint Mary.

      Objectively, Mister Andrades is denying the salvation of Moses and Abraham.

      Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way.
      Fr.Gleize is making the same error
      In reality, Fr Gleize’s teaching in this particular is EXACTLY consistent with the Tradition, the Doctrine, and the Revelation, whereas Mister Andrades is overtly preaching against Church Dogma.
      Both the Prophets Elijah and Moses, neither of them Catholics in their lives, are KNOWN to be saved and in Christ’s Heaven, given that both Jewish Prophets appeared beside Jesus during the Transfiguration.
      • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]
        And neither of these Prophets baptised BTW
      • Lionel Andrades
        Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        Jabba:
        … because the doctrine concerns the Church of the Christ in the Afterlife, rather than the Catholic Church Militant.
        BTW :
        It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven
        Lionel:
        The doctrine/dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. One can only convert while alive on earth.
        Objectively, this is a formal heresy, denying all saintly Apparitions, including those of the Holy Virgin Saint Mary.
        Lionel: In general we human beings cannot see the dead on earth. This is common sense.
        This is mentioned, since it is assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words there are visible cases of the dead seen on earth.
        Objectively, Mister Andrades is denying the salvation of Moses and Abraham.
        Lionel:
        Before the Death and Resurrection Moses, Abraham and the saints of the Old Testament had to wait in ‘Abraham’s bosom’ before they could go to Heaven.

        Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way.
        Fr.Gleize is making the same error
        In reality, Fr Gleize’s teaching in this particular is EXACTLY consistent with the Tradition, the Doctrine, and the Revelation, whereas Mister Andrades is overtly preaching against Church Dogma.
        Lionel:
        Fr.Gleize assumes Unitatis Redintigratio (3) is a known exception to the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities. It is an exception to the dogma on salvation for him.
        1) You and I cannot name any such case alive or who is going to be saved as such.
        2) We cannot cite any text in Vatican Council II which says these cases are visible for us in real life i.e we can see the dead who will be saved or are saved as such.
        3) Neither does Vatican Council II state that there are any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
        Both the Prophets Elijah and Moses, neither of them Catholics in their lives, are KNOWN to be saved and in Christ’s Heaven, given that both Jewish Prophets appeared beside Jesus during the Transfiguration.
        Lionel:
        God the Father wants all people to enter the Catholic Church (CCC 845), the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood(CCC 845). The Church is a continuation of the Jewish religion. In 2014 every one needs to enter the Church with ‘faith and baptism’(AG7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. This is the normal, ordinary means of salvation. If someone is saved with the baptism of desire or some other means we accept it as a possibility. Though since these cases are not known to us they are irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching on salvation.
        So the Jewish prophets were saved after the Resurrection of the Jewish Messiah.It does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Jabba:
      Mister Andrades is an extremist literalist (and nuisance-maker) whose personal views cannot be held up as being orthodox. From long experience with him at the Catholicism Pure And Simple blog.
      Lionel:
      Mister Andrades is affirming Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. AG 7 is also included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the sub title Outside the Church there is no Salvation.
      So Vatican Council II is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, thrice defined, and affirmed by the popes and saints.
      Mister Andrades doesn’t have anything new to add to it.
  • Lionel Andrades
    Thank you.
    Lionel
  • Nicolas Bellord
    Lionel: This is clearer than your previous comments. In summary I think you are saying that the SSPX claim that baptism of desire is visible in the flesh i.e. we can identify who is saved by baptism of desire. I agree with you that this seems wrong. However what is the significance of the SSPX claim and where does it lead? It just seems a rather strange claim to me and I do not see the implications.
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Nicolas Bellord
      Lionel: This is clearer than your previous comments. In summary I think you are saying that the SSPX claim that baptism of desire is visible in the flesh i.e. we can identify who is saved by baptism of desire. I agree with you that this seems wrong.
      Lionel:
      Yes ! Nicholas.
      Nicholas Bellord:
      However what is the significance of the SSPX claim and where does it lead? It just seems a rather strange claim to me and I do not see the implications.
      Lionel:
      There are so many implications Nicholas. I don’t know where to start from.
      They are also aware of this error but they do not want to admit it or change.
      This would result in a fundamental and major change in their interpretation of Vatican Council II. It could also be crisis for the Vatican Curia.
      The SSPX would also have to re-interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to fr.Leonard Feeney.
      It would mean the Novus Ordo Mass for the SSPX would be traditional in its thelogy and doctrine.etc,etc.
  • Catholic at Rome
    Mrs. Donnelly,
    You have to take some care with those like Lionel who want to defend the followers and doctrines of Fr. Feeney, SJ. Fr. Feeney was a famous apologist from Boston USA, but in his writings he often switched between senses of terms. Thus, his personal doctrine about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in certain points veered away from the teaching of the Fathers.
    True, Outside of the Church there is no salvation, is a dogma of the Church, and this means not only that all salvation which comes alone from Christ’s merits, flows from His Church, the Catholic Church, but also that you can only receive it if you die a faithful member of that Church. However, Fr. Feeney went further and denied the Patristic teaching, which is common teaching today, approved by such doctors of the Church as St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, that there is an extraordinary case in which someone dies with the grace necessary to be saved, without however being a visible member of the Catholic Church. This is called “Baptism of Desire” in English, but in Latin, baptismus flaminis, or more correctly translated as, “Baptism by the flame of inspiration”. It is postulated to occur when the Holy Spirit inspires one with faith in Crist with such purity that if he knew of the Church he would have joined the Church. But invinceable ignorance, the human incapacity to know the Church and overcome this ignorance, intervenes, and thus it results that the man dies in the grace of God, but visibly outside the Church.
    In Explaining this hypothetical case as with the expression Baptism of Desire many have fallen into error, because they do not have recourse to the patristic teaching, and the strict meaning of the terms underwhich it must be explained. It is not, as the followers of Fr. Feeney say, a way of replacing Baptism by water, which is an remains according to the Teaching of Christ the only means, visible and invisible, for becomming a member of Christ’s Church, when the one receiving this, desires this; for a man baptised in the Protestant Church desiring to be a member of that Church, does not desire to be a member of the true and only Church, and thus the effect of Baptism, which is inherent in the sacrament is thwarted. Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament, nor does any man know with certainty whether he himself or another has received such a grace from the Holy Ghost.
    But theologians commonly say, so as to affirm the pre-eminence of the action of the Holy Spirit and the essential efficacy of sanctifying grace, that if such a case were to exist, then the movement of grace given by the Holy Spirit would alone be sufficient to save the man, and ipso facto make him a member at death in the Church triumphant or suffering, though he was never a visible member of the Church militant.
    Thus there is no reason to condemn the fathers of the SSPX on this score, who have sought to eradicate the exaggerations and errors spread by many disciples of Fr. Feeney, who, like them, are right in holding fast to the Ancient Roman Rite.
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      You have to take some care with those like Lionel who want to defend the followers and doctrines of Fr. Feeney, SJ.
      Lionel:
      Lionel is not a member of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.leonard Feeney who are recognized by the Catholic dioceses of Worcester and Manchester. In Worcester they have full canonical status.Neither am I using their apologetics.Though I support them. Call me a sympathiser.
      I am not presenting a new theology. I am here basically making a philosophical observation. I am saying that we cannot see the dead- saved with the baptism of desire. So one should specify. When the term baptism of desire is used , does it mean visible for us baptism of desire or invisible for us baptism of desire?
      Fr. Feeney was a famous apologist from Boston USA, but in his writings he often switched between senses of terms. Thus, his personal doctrine about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in certain points veered away from the teaching of the Fathers.
      Lionel:
      veered away from the teaching of the Fathers?
      He was affirming the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the saints and popes over centuries. None of them referred to explicit for us baptism of desire. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.
      True, Outside of the Church there is no salvation, is a dogma of the Church, and this means not only that all salvation which comes alone from Christ’s merits, flows from His Church, the Catholic Church, but also that you can only receive it if you die a faithful member of that Church.
      Lionel:
      ‘all salvation which comes alone from Christ’s merits, flows from His Church’…,
      True and we physically cannot see any of these cases on earth. So why mention it. Are you implying that we can see these cases and they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?
      However, Fr. Feeney went further and denied the Patristic teaching, which is common teaching today, approved by such doctors of the Church as St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, that there is an extraordinary case in which someone dies with the grace necessary to be saved, without however being a visible member of the Catholic Church. This is called “Baptism of Desire” in English, but in Latin, baptismus flaminis, or more correctly translated as, “Baptism by the flame of inspiration”. It is postulated to occur when the Holy Spirit inspires one with faith in Crist with such purity that if he knew of the Church he would have joined the Church. But invinceable ignorance, the human incapacity to know the Church and overcome this ignorance, intervenes, and thus it results that the man dies in the grace of God, but visibly outside the Church.
      Lionel:
      In the book The Bread of Life we have Fr.Leonard Feeney agreeing that a catechumen could be saved with implicit desire . He would have justification, as such,and this would be followed by the baptism of water. The baptism of water would be necessary for salvation.
      Anyway, with the baptism of water or without it, the baptism of desire is not a visible exception.So why mention it? Are you implying it is an exception?
      In Explaining this hypothetical case as with the expression Baptism of Desire many have fallen into error, because they do not have recourse to the patristic teaching, and the strict meaning of the terms underwhich it must be explained. It is not, as the followers of Fr. Feeney say, a way of replacing Baptism by water, which is an remains according to the Teaching of Christ the only means, visible and invisible, for becomming a member of Christ’s Church, when the one receiving this, desires this; for a man baptised in the Protestant Church desiring to be a member of that Church, does not desire to be a member of the true and only Church, and thus the effect of Baptism, which is inherent in the sacrament is thwarted. Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament, nor does any man know with certainty whether he himself or another has received such a grace from the Holy Ghost.
      Lionel:
      I repeat I am not referring to theology. I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance. I am saying that they are irrelevant to this issue since they are known only to God.
      I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. I deny explicit for us baptism of desire. What about you?
      But theologians commonly say, so as to affirm the pre-eminence of the action of the Holy Spirit and the essential efficacy of sanctifying grace, that if such a case were to exist, then the movement of grace given by the Holy Spirit would alone be sufficient to save the man, and ipso facto make him a member at death in the Church triumphant or suffering, though he was never a visible member of the Church militant.
      Lionel:
      Fine. But how is this relevant to the dogma when there are no known cases in 2014. So every one in 2014 needs to convert into the Church for salvation and you do not know any exception.
      Thus there is no reason to condemn the fathers of the SSPX on this score, who have sought to eradicate the exaggerations and errors spread by many disciples of Fr. Feeney, who, like them, are right in holding fast to the Ancient Roman Rite.
      Lionel:
      None of the Church Fathers have said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.
      Implicit baptism of desire, known only to God is acceptable and is not an exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
  • Catholic at Rome
    Finally, in this discussion of Baptism as necessary, one must distinguish between necessary by a necessity of means and necessary by a necessity of precept, and necessary by a necessity of being. Baptism by water is the sacrament precepted by Christ for salvation: as a sacrament it is necessary by a necessity of precept. The common teaching regarding Baptism of desire, holds that Baptism by water is not necessary absolutely by a necessity of being, and that there exists an except to the precept to receive the Sacrament though there is no exception to the fundamental grace and act required to receive the Sacrament: namely to the grace of faith and penance with justification and sanctifying grace.
    For those who don’t see the theological necessity for affirming the efficacy of the baptismus flaminis, they fall into denying its underlying truths, namely the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s action in giving the grace of faith and penance, in justifying a sinner, and in saving the elect; the universality of Christ’s merits, the limitations of human ignorance, etc. However, on the side of those who attacked Fr. Feeney and many of his disciples, there is often lost the appreciation for the universality of God’s Providence, which should be presumed to provide all necessary occasions for salvation to the Elect, and the terrible justice of God which ought to punish every failing to be faithful to God’s Providential designs, howsoever small, a Justice which has the right to damn a man, even for a venial fault, since salvation is simply and purely a gift, and never in se merited prior to justification; even though for those justified, one can by good works, faith and charity, merit salvation, for this is the blessed wonder which grace effects, the collaboration in one’s own salvation (de condigno) and that of others (de congruo).
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Catholic at Rome
      Finally, in this discussion of Baptism as necessary, one must distinguish between necessary by a necessity of means and necessary by a necessity of precept, and necessary by a necessity of being. Baptism by water is the sacrament precepted by Christ for salvation: as a sacrament it is necessary by a necessity of precept. The common teaching regarding Baptism of desire, holds that Baptism by water is not necessary absolutely by a necessity of being, and that there exists an except to the precept to receive the Sacrament though there is no exception to the fundamental grace and act required to receive the Sacrament: namely to the grace of faith and penance with justification and sanctifying grace.
      Lionel:
      ‘Finally, in this discussion of Baptism as necessary, one must distinguish between necessary by a necessity of means and necessary by a necessity of precept, and necessary by a necessity of being.’
      How is it relevant to the dogma? If any one is saved as such it would be visible only for God and invisible for us.You are referring to a possibility which I accept. You are referring to a hypothetical case. So it cannot be a concrete exception to the dogma.
      For those who don’t see the theological necessity for affirming the efficacy of the baptismus flaminis,
      Lionel:
      ‘don’t see the theological necessity for affirming the efficacy of the baptismus flaminis?’
      Why should it be denied ? It is not explicit.It is accepted.
      Lionel:
      ‘they fall into denying its underlying truths, namely the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s action in giving the grace of faith and penance, in justifying a sinner, and in saving the elect;..’
      Yes the Holy Spirit could give the grace of faith and penance necessary for salvation. However it would be false to imply that the Holy Spirit teaches that these cases are visible to us and so are a known exception to the the dogma on salvation. The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality.
      the universality of Christ’s merits, the limitations of human ignorance, etc. However, on the side of those who attacked Fr. Feeney
      Lionel:
      I have not come to this issue through any of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities.I can discuss this issue witout any reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney.I have cited magisterial texts to support my view.
      and many of his disciples, there is often lost the appreciation for the universality of God’s Providence, which should be presumed to provide all necessary occasions for salvation to the Elect, and the terrible justice of God which ought to punish every failing to be faithful to God’s Providential designs, howsoever small, a Justice which has the right to damn a man, even for a venial fault, since salvation is simply and purely a gift, and never in se merited prior to justification; even though for those justified, one can by good works, faith and charity, merit salvation, for this is the blessed wonder which grace effects, the collaboration in one’s own salvation (de condigno) and that of others (de congruo).
      Lionel:
      Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities too like the SSPX and liberals have been interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
      They have correctly affirmed the dogma and said there are no exceptions.However when it came to Vatican Council II they assumed that LG 16 etc were exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
      The SSPX have never affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They have always said there are known exceptions. So we must give the St.Bendict Centers in the USA credit here.
  • peter
    Lionel
    Are you saying that there is no salvation outside the catholic church whatsoever?
    Out of interest what do think about the document ‘From Conflict to Communion’ on Lutheran/Catholic relations and Pope Benedict’s words to Sigrid Spath?
    peter
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Peter:
      Are you saying that there is no salvation outside the catholic church whatsoever?
      Lionel:
      I am saying that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation. So this means the majority of non Catholics who die without faith and baptism are oriented to Hell at the time of death, if they have not converted into the Catholic Church.This teaching is also confirmed by the Catechism 1993(CCC 846), Dominus Iesus(20), the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc. So it is not a personal view.
      In Heaven there are only Catholics, who have died without mortal sin on their soul and who had faith and baptism.
      Peter
      Out of interest what do think about the document ‘From Conflict to Communion’ on Lutheran/Catholic relations and Pope Benedict’s words to Sigrid Spath?
      Lionel:
      Lutherans and other Protestants do not have Catholic Faith, which includes the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church and the Sacraments through which God saves.They are outside the Church.
  • Charles Byrne
    I don’t see any direct quotations from Bishop Fellay or any of the other priests in question. I do not find the alleged quotation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Is this a direct quotation, from where? If you are going to accuse someone of error, you have to clearly reference the text in question.
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Charles Byrne
      I don’t see any direct quotations from Bishop Fellay or any of the other priests in question. I do not find the alleged quotation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Is this a direct quotation, from where? If you are going to accuse someone of error, you have to clearly reference the text in question.
      Lionel:
      1.
      The SSPX official website has approved articles on two web pages written by Fr.Francois Laisney and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer ( now SSPX-SOS) with the same objective error. It is assumed that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire for them to be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and also to 27 Q of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven.Bishop Fellay has approved these articles by the SSPX priests.Also these two articles deal with theology and do not mention that philosophically we cannot see the dead-saved. So there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
      2.
      The SSPX General Chapter statement says:
      For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation…’
      The General Chapter Statement says :
      The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors…
      Bishop Bernard Fellay and the General Chapter members did not state that it was Vatican Council II itself which says ‘outside ‘ the Church ‘ there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation..’.
      3.
      The Superior General of the SSPX has permitted books to be sold by the SSPX with this same factual error. The error is there in a book written by Fr.Jean Marie Gleize . Bishop Fellay wrote the preface and recommended this book.
      4.
      ‘the society (SSPX) is known as a strong defender and proponent of the Tridentine Mass, along with pious practices, beliefs, customs and religious discipline often associated with the period before the Second Vatican Council, which the society believes promoted erroneous’-Wikipedia
      ‘associated with the period before the Second Vatican Council ?’
      Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has made a doctrinal error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.He uses the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error and is unaware of it. So Vatican Council emerges for the SSPX as heretical.
      Bishop Fellay cannot issue a clarification when such reports appear in the media since he assumes there are known exceptions in Vatican Council II to all Tradition.
      5.
      Similarly the secular, left media says Vatican Council II has changed Church’s teaching with regard to other religions.
      This is false. Yet Bishop Bernard Fellay cannot say that there is no text in Vatican Council II to support this error. Since Bishop Fellay himself makes the same error in the interpretation of the Council. He assumes all references to salvation (LG 16) etc are not invisible for us but visible .They are not hypothetical but de facto known in the present times.
      Similarly when it is said that Nostra Aetate has changed Church teaching, Bishop Fellay cannot show that this is not true because of the Cushing-Jesuit Error which is common in the SSPX.
      -Lionel Andrades
      Charles Byrne
      I do not find the alleged quotation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
      Lionel:
      Fr.Jean Marie Gleaze has mentioned Mystici Corporis. He indicates that Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis mentioned exceptions to the traditional interpretation on the dogma. Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote the preface for this book.
  • Benedict Carter
    Sorry Lionel, but try as I might, I cannot follow your banter.
    This implicit vs. explicit – any chance of some concrete examples, so it’s easier to follow?
    • Lionel Andrades
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Benedict Carter
      The box of mangoes
      If in a box of mangoes there is an apple , the apple is an exception because it is there. It exists there. If it was not there it would not be an exception.
      To be an exception it has to be visible and known and different.
      When it is not visible, known and existing it is not an exception.
      I do not know any person; I cannot see anyone in heaven or on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.These cases are not visible to me but are known only to God i.e if there was such a case .So they cannot be an exception to any thing.
      Jesus reaffirmed the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation (Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7). I cannot see any exception in 2014.
      In theory is is possible to be saved as such, in practise, in real life, there are no such cases.
      So when Vatican Council II (LG 14) says those who know that the Church is founded by God , through Jesus Christ but do not enter will be damned, is this something implicit or explicit for you?
      Vatican Council II (LG 16) refers to those who through no fault of their own have not had the Gospel preached to them and who have been leading a good life and so could be saved . Is this subjective or objective for us?
      When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates all who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church, do we know of any such case?
      Are these cases invisible or visible for you?
      When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that those who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church , do we know of any such case?
      Are these cases invisible or visible for you?
      When the Catechism (1257 The Necessity of Baptism) says God is not limited to the Sacraments, is it referring to hypothetical cases or defacto, known- to- us people in 2014?
      Similarly those saved with the seeds of the Word(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) are explicit for us or explicit only for God?
      Would Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston know the name and surname of an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation?
      Was there a known case to refute Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston?
      Could those saved through the ‘good and holy’ things in their religion (NA 2) be relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
      Could any reader of Protect the Pope give me an example of an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
      -Lionel Andrades
  • Wake up England
    “Before his senseless stocks and stones
    the heathen offers up his prayers;
    how better far advised are we
    who worship rather stocks and shares”
    Anon.
  • Lionel Andrades
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Benedict Carter
    Sorry Lionel, but try as I might, I cannot follow your banter.
    This implicit vs. explicit – any chance of some concrete examples, so it’s easier to follow?
    Lionel:
    For a thing to be an exceptions it must be different and it must exist.
    If there is a box of oranges with one apple in its midst, then the apple is an exception because it is is different and because it is there in the box.
    If there are five tall boys standing at a street corner and a short one joins them the is exception because he is not tall and because he is there at the street corner.
    If in a hospital ward there are 12 patients with tubercolosis and one is cured completely then he is an exception since he is different and is still there in the ward.
    The baptism of desire (without being followed by the baptism of water) is different from the baptism of water. But how can it be an exception to the teaching on all needing the baptism of water for salvation, when there is no case of the baptism of desire, which exists in our reality?
  • Lionel Andrades
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Wake up England
    This is a serious issue.It involves not only the SSPX and Bishop Bernard Fellay but others in the Church.
    Padre Pio Prayer Groups, Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities, Diocesan priests…
    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) 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.
    In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.
    -Lionel Andrades
  • Lionel Andrades
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Wake up England
    …and Monsignor Guido Pozzo
    The Secretary of Ecclesia Dei Vatican assisted at the ITC (1) and did not notice the factual error in “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized”. Like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria he was using the right hand column.
    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) are either:
    COLUMN A
    implicit
    hypothetical
    invisible
    dejure ( in principle)
    subjective
    COLUMN B
    explicit for us.
    known in reality.
    visible in the flesh.
    defacto ( in fact )
    objective.
    So one can choose from COLUMN A or B.
    If COLUMN B 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 COLUMN A 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 COLUMN B.
    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 COLUMN B.There were and are no known exceptions.
    In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noi, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Monsignor Guido Pozzo (1) are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.- Lionel Andrades
    1.
    * PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission. In order to prepare for this study, a Committee was formed comprised by Most Rev. Ignazio Sanna, Most Rev. Basil Kyu-Man Cho, Rev. Peter Damien Akpunonu, Rev. Adelbert Denaux, Rev. Gilles Emery, OP, Msgr. Ricardo Ferrara, Msgr. István Ivancsó, Msgr. Paul McPartlan, Rev. Dominic Veliath, SDB (President of the Committee), and Sr. Sarah Butler, MSTB. The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission. The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication. – Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
  • Thank you to everyone who has posted further comments on this thread. I am very sorry but I have not had time to read through them yet. I am finding some of them particularly hard to follow and many of them are very long. I hope to be able to look at these later in the week…
  • Lionel Andrades
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Lynda
    Mrs. Donnelly, You have to take some care with those like Lionel who want to defend the followers and doctrines of Fr. Feeney, SJ. Fr. Feeney was a famous apologist from Boston USA, but in his writings he often switched between senses of terms. Thus, his personal doctrine about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in certain [...]
    Lionel:
    Lynda,the followers of Fr.Leonard Feeney have full canonical status in the Catholic diocese of Worcester.
    The followers of Fr.Leonard Feeney are Catholics.Their religious Congregations are recognized by the Catholic Church in the dioceses of the USA. They hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as did the Church Councils , popes and saints St.Thomas Aquinas, Maximillian Kolbe and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
    I affirm Vatican Council II and support the traditional dogma,with text from Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846),Dominus Iesus 20 etc. This is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and not just that of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
    Though unlike the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,(and the SSPX and the Dioceses) I do not interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
    This is because for me the baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc are invisible for me.I accept them as possibilities which are visible only for God.They cannot be exceptions since we cannot know exceptions on earth; we cannot see the dead.
    When you realize that these cases are invisible, then you also would agree with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, since there would be no known exceptions.
    One can have it both ways- affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and the literal interpretaion of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the saints and popes over the centuries.
  • Lionel Andrades
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Thank you! I think you are doing a great job.
    Since there has been so much of misinformation and propaganda in the secular media on Fr.Leonard Feeney I can imagine the response of many good Catholics, to what they have been reading in the liberal media.
    In my posts I am refer to reason and then to magisterial texts interpreted rationally.
    In Christ
    Lionel
  • THERE IS TO BE NO DISCUSSION ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ON THE PROTECT THE POPE BLOG

    All my replies to comments on the article  'Lionel Andrades and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' (approved as an article by Deacon Nick Donnelly ) and   posted on  Protect the Pope, some 15 of them,  have been removed. There is to be no discussion on this subject.
    Stations of the Cross with Pope Francis
    The regular propaganda on the Catholic diocese websites in England will continue to maintain that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 27Q) and Tradition in general. Since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to possibilities of salvation and possibilities are known exceptions, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
     
    So since there are allegedly visible in the flesh exceptions in 2014 to Tradition it cannot be said on an English blog that all Protestansts in England are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II, unless they convert into the Catholic Church with Catholic faith (AG 7).
     
    It cannot be said that all Protestants need Catholic Faith which includes the sacraments and the moral and faith teachings, according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
     
    Instead it has to be said that there are known exceptions to Tradition, persons whom you can meet in the diocese of England, Lancaster, for example, who are saved or going to be saved in invincible ignorance etc.This is known to God and also to human beings in Lancaster and the rest of England.
     
    It also means all young vocations to the religious life in England must accept that the dead who are saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc are physically visible exeptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
     
    They have to accept that because of these known exceptions all Orthodox Christians no more have to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and are no more schismatics.
     
    It is common sense that in general human beings cannot see the dead. To imply or claim that one can see them is a lie. It would be a lie in Lent for a Catholic to suggest that we can see the dead-saved, who have become on earth exceptions to the  literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard  Feeney.
     
    Also it would be a lie to claim that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying that the baptism of desire is a known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since in England there are visible exceptions known to all.
     
    Even a non Catholic would have the integrity to say that the dead-saved are not visible on earth, we cannot meet them, we cannot shake their hands, we cannot know them by name. So they cannot be considered known exceptions to the literal and traditional teaching of the Catholic Church , which says all need to convert into the Church to go to Heaven and avoid the fires of Hell.



    This is the teaching of Vatican Council II(AG 7), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846-all need to enter the Church as through a door),the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (27Q) etc.This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church according to magisterial documents interpreted rationally and it cannot be proclaimed or discussed in England.
    -Lionel Andrades


     

    Sedevacantists have a right to enter the Catholic Church once Vatican Council II is affirmed without the factual error

    Sedevacantists have a right to enter the Catholic Church they are objecting  to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error. Once this error is acknowledged and discarded Vatican Council II affirms the sedevacantist position on non Catholic religions and Christian communities and churches.
     
     
    The sedevacantists CMRI,MHFM are endorsing Tradition prior to Vatican Council II, since they assume Lumen Gentium 16( being saved in invincible ignorance) etc are cases known to us in 2014. For the Catholic dioceses, they are exceptions.On Wikipedia too,   LG 16 is said to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and no cardinal or bishop objects.
     
     
    Even the International Theological Commission, Vatican in two theological papers, 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised' wrongly implies that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation  of the dogma on exclusive salvation. ITC also assumes that this is the interpretation of Pope Pius XII.
     
    The sedevacantists are critical of this irrational interpretation of the Council, which results in a new and non traditional doctrine.
    The MHFM , for example, is even critical of the SSPX, for suggesting that there are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. They also contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X (27 Q) with the same teaching.
     
    There could be a reconciliation with the sedevacantists, if  the websites in England and the USA, would acknowledge:-
     
    1.They affirm Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
    2. Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8 etc) refer to possibilities of salvation but these possibilities are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.Since it is impossible for us to know any 'exception' on earth. They are known only to God.
    3.The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and not, being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), seeds of the Word(AG 11), good and holy things in other religions(NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) etc.
     
    The official websites of the Catholic dioceses today assume there are known exceptions to the defined dogma on salvation. This is  heresy.
     
    With a factual error they are also re- interpreting the Nicene Creed ( "I believe in (not) one baptism (the baptism of water) for the forgiveness of sin, (but three known baptisms, water, blood and desire).
     
    They are also shelving the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation since they assume outside the church there is salvation with LG 16, LG 8 etc.
     
    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was protesting against this version of Vatican Council II (with the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error) and he was excommunicated.Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying that there is no visible for us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance  and he was excommunicated.He was fortunate to have the excommunication lifted before he died, unlike Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
     
    There are so many Catholics who will die as sedevacantists since the Vatican and cardinals and archbishops in the dioceses have not acknowledged a factual error being used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
     
    The Americans Peter and Michael Dimond have emphasized the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in their sedevacantism. Often I have to tell people that I accept Vatican Council II with no known exceptions being mentioned in the Council to Tradition. So I am not a sedevacantist.
     
    If the Vatican could acknowledge that a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II means there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this would be an opening for the sedevacantists and  the beginning of a reconciliation.
    -Lionel Andrades