a) Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of Vatican Council II with or without the premise. He was not aware of the premise being the cause of the break with the past.Fr.Angelo Geiger has had the same problem.
b) The Archbishop did not notice the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He also assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the reasoning being used by Fr.Geiger.
So Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of rupture for Fr.Angelo Geiger with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He accepts this.Now even after knowing that the rupture is caused by the false premise,he will not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
1.He does not affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise.
2.He does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Hindu in Tibet 1 can be saved in his religion, it is true, but we don't know any such case, defacto.The Hindu in Tibet is saved through Jesus and the Church, true, but he is not physically visible to us in the present times to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto, explicit exception.All need to convert into the Church in 2014 for salvation and the Hindu being saved in Tibet is irrelevant.It is a possibility, something theoretical.
Archbishop Lefebvre inferred that the baptism of desire was visible to us and that these cases were personally known to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.The Franciscans of the Immaculate religious also make this same error.
The difference between them and Fr.Geiger is that they reject Vatican Council II ( with the premise) while Fr.Geiger and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi accept Vatican Council II with the premise.
Archbishop Lefebvre made the same mistake in Vatican Council II.It was the Cushingite error. This is the error of inferring that there are non Catholics, who are now in Heaven but they are allegedly visible to us on earth. Since they are visible to the eye on earth, it is inferred, that they are exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water to avoid Hell.This is the inference that Fr.Geiger uses in the innterpretation of Vatican Council II. This is Vatican Council II with the false premise i.e being able to see the dead on earth who are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that being saved with ' ray of the Truth' (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc referred to visible for us cases.So for him there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.The Vatican Curia and the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate use the same reasoning. They instead accept Vatican Council II with this false premise and the resulting heresy.The heresy of denying the defined dogma on salvation and changing the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed becomes "I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin"( and not one, the baptism of water).
Without the Cushingite premise Vatican Council II would be traditional but Archbishop Lefebvre did not know it.Fr.Geiger knows it. Yet he will not affirm the traditional teachings.He will not comment.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting the general interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the premise. He was not aware though,that it was the premise which caused a break with the past.Fr.Geiger has been informed but he will not comment.
With the use of the irrational premise Fr.Angelo Geiger, the Secretary General of the Franciscans of the Immaculate,Fr.Alfonso Bruno, and the Apostolic Commissioner Fr.Fidenzio Volpi are denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They are denying an ex cathedra dogma which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' according the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.They are rejecting the ex cathedra dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 which did not mention any exceptions. Fr.Angelo Geiger and the others infer there is known salvation outside the Church. They infer that those non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are visible to us. So these cases become explicit exeptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is a denial of an ex cathedra dogma and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.They are allowed to offer Holy Mass.
They are also rejecting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.
It is this public heresy that they want the main group of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept.
They want the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate to rubber stamp Vatican Council II with an irrationality and so reject the de fide teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. It is only then that they will be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and teach at the seminary.
This is all being done officially and openly.
Fr.Angelo Geiger uses the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II similar to Archbishop Lefebvre, whom he has been criticizing for years.