All of them in this photo have been taught or are teaching others that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Where are these exceptions?
Bishop Sanborn does not know of any. He cannot name any.
Fr. Anthony Cekada does not know of any exception personally this year.
Yet every one in the photo above will have to say that there are exceptions to the dogma.Why?
Fr.Cekada has to say that there are exceptions since Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted it.He had his religious formation in the SSPX.
For the other traditionalists there are exceptions since Pope Pius XII was a holy and good pope and he could not be wrong.He is an acceptable pope for the traditionalists.
But Pope Pius XII did not personally know of any exceptions either.Human beings cannot know of any exception to the dogma.If there is an exception it would be known only to God.
Baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cases - are in Heaven. How can we know of these cases today, how can we see them, or meet them.?If they are invisible for us how can they be exceptions? Yet they were exceptions for the popes including Pius XII.
For Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani these cases were exceptions and so they criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney. Even the SSPX praises the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which said there are exceptions, and which criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney.The SSPX and FSSP say St.Emerentiana who allegedly died without the baptism of water centuries back is an exception to the dogma today. This is their reasoning. This is philosophy for them.Some one who died centuries back can be an exception to the dogma today.
None of them know of any exceptions. Yet they assume that hypothetical cases, possibilities are defacto exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church.Pope Pius XII accepted this and did not defend Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits placed this error in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7).
Now the sedevacantists in the picture are still saying there are exceptions, even after they have been informed. The same with the SSPX and the MICM. For all of them LG 16 is an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since there is an exception, Vatican Council II becomes a break with Tradition and the dogma. The result is that Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Cekada offer the Traditional Latin Mass as sedevacantists, the MICM remain within the Church ( rejecting Vatican Council among themself and accepting it before the Vatican and their bishop) and offer the Traditional Latin Mass , the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II and also offers the Traditional Latin Mass.The Vatican Curia also says there are exceptions but accepts Vatican Council II with these exceptions and does not consider it heresy or irrationality..
I accept Vatican Council II in which there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I accept the dogma as it was taught over the centuries before 1949 and was common place among those who offered/attended the Traditional Latin Mass.
COUNCIL OF TRENT
A sedevacantist says that the Council of Trent mentions 'the desire thereof'.Yes but it does not state that these cases can be known to us in the present times. If they cannot be known in personal cases then how can there be exceptions? The Council of Trent also does not say that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is assumed by the sedevacantists in the picture.
It is said 'all pre-Vatican II theologians taught BOD and BOB' .They made an error when they linked it to EENS or assumed that these cases were personally known to be exceptions.
It is said 'all pre-Vatican II catechisms taught BOD and BOB'. None of them mentioned that these cases were explicitly known in the present times. It is the sedevacantists who made the inference like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It is Marchetti who originally made the wrong inference.
It is said Pope Benedict XV expressly teaches BOD and BOB in promulgating the Code of Canon Law (1917).Again the pope does not state that these cases are exceptions. If he did make this claim then he would be making an objective mistake, a factual mistake. We cannot see the dead-saved on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Church. So we cannot know of any exceptions. This is a fact of life.
So if a pope or cardinal claims that BOD and BOB are exceptions to the dogma then he has made a factual mistake. It is not a mistake of theology it is a common sense mistake. It is a contradiction of common knowledge.-Lionel Andrades