Friday, November 13, 2015

There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Cantate Dominio on ecumenism and other religions - 2

    3. A  continuation of the discussion with IAAD from the last blog post.
    4. Introibo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD)

      Major premise: The First Vatican Council obliges us to believe everything taught both ex cathedra and by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as belonging to the Faith.
      Minor Premise: The unanimous teaching of the theologians tells us the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium finds its expression in catechisms approved by the Holy See.
      Conclusion: Whatever is taught in Catechisms approved by the Holy See is infallibly true--as per the teaching of the First Vatican Council
    5. Lionel:Yes. They would be true but in this specific case if you  use an irrational premise to interpret them then the conclusion is non traditional and non Catholic.
    6. _________________________
    7. Major Premise: Everything taught in catechisms approved by the Holy See is infallibly true (see above)
      Minor Premise: BOD and BOB is taught in catechisms approved by the Holy See.
      Conclusion: Bod and BOB without BOW as sufficient for Church membership and salvation is infallibly true.If you deny this, you are NOT CATHOLIC!
    8. Lionel: Do the Catechisms say BOD and BOB are explicit or impliict, visible or invisible ?
    10. ___________________________
    11. Introibo: No. I believe that they are in error therefore they are not legitimate popes and V2 is not a legitimate council. It is a new and false religion.

      Lionel:So you believe they are in error. The catechisms are also in error. So why are you complaining when I say the same thing?

      Introibo: For someone who's big on alleged distinctions of "visible and invisible" you can't distinguish between "true pope/false pope."
      In other words, sedevacantists are not teaching that catechisms approved by the Holy See teach error. We are saying, in conformity of the unanimous consent of the theologians, the papal decree of Pope Paul IV "Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio", of 1559, and canon law that a heretic CANNOT be pope. Therefore, when the post-V2 popes professed heresy in their personal capacity they ceased to be (or never became) pope. Hence, there was no protection of the Holy Ghost from error since they were not members of the Church. YOU think a professed heretic can be pope! Therefore, the Holy Ghost failed the Church! That is blasphemy. The difference between our positions is very clear!
    12. Lionel: So the bottom line is that you reject the Catechism ( 1992).
    13. __________________________________

    14. Lionel: I give specific references. I do not say in general they are in error.

      Introibo: No you don't. You simply state "this is wrong" with no authoritative teaching of the Church to back it up. 
    15. Lionel: BOD and BOB are mentioned in Church documents. The documents do not say that they are explicit or implicit, visible and invisible. You interpret them as being visible. This is irrational. I say this based on common knowledge. Common sense.
    16. I cite text like LG 16 etc and say that I affirm them but as being invisible for us and visible only for God.
    17. The inference is the issue and not the paricular text . We both read the same Church documents. You read it with an inference and I avoid that inference.
    18. ________________

    19. Lionel: Also I know that the specific error to which I refer to can be corrected.

      Introibo: Really?? You do?? Your "popes" can't figure it out but YOU can! I thought the popes were guided by the Holy Ghost to teach the laity and not vice-versa! The real Magisterium becomes you in your bizarre "Alice in Wonderland" world.
    20. Lionel: The error can be corrected by avoiding the inference. You don't have to be a pope or even know theology to figure this out.
    21. ___________________
    22. Introibo Ad Altare Dei
      Introibo: For a complete list of pre-Vatican II theologians (as well as canon law citations) on loss of papal office, please see Traditionalists, Infallibility, and The Pope by Fr. Cekada at

      Lionel:Fr. Cekada ? For him LG 16 is explicit and an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. How can people now in Heaven, be exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma?
      And if the members of Fr. Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA do not accept BOD and BOB as being explicit; if they claim they cannot see these deceased now in Heaven, Fr. Cekada says they are in mortal sin!

      Introibo: I was talking about HIS CITATIONS. You can look up the long list of theologians and even a papal decree that state a heretic can't be pope! 
      Sermons by Fr. FliessSermons by Fr. FliessSermons by Fr. FliessSermons by Fr. SelwayLionel: Pope Pius XII made an objective error in the Boston Case. He mixed up what was invisible as being visible. I mentioned this in an earlier post. Is he a false pope for you? 
    23. _____________________

      Second, you are in mortal sin against the faith (heresy) if you dent BOD and BOB.
    24. Lionel: I repeat I do not deny BOD and BOB. I do not have to deny them since they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS.I accept them.
    25. ______________________
    26. . You admit we can't see anyone in Heaven with or without BOW. So how do we know any saint, such as St. Maria Goretti, is in Heaven? By Faith! You admitted that too!
    27. Lionel:
    28. Yes. Agreed.In faith we accept that the saints are in Heaven. In faith I accept that a person could be saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood.I admit that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance. I admit this in faith. In faith I  accept the dogma EENS which says all who are saved need to be formal members of the Church. In faith I accept that God has chosen 'faith and baptism' in the Catholic Church as the only way to avoid Hell in the present times. If God, being God, choses to save a person without the baptism of water, I would not know about it.Since I and others would not know about it the baptism of desire etc is not postulated by me, as being relevant or an exception to  the traditional de fide interpretation of EENS.
    29. _______________
    30.  We know St. Victor is in Heaven without BOW and by BOB because the Church is infallible in Her Liturgy and teaches this truth.
    31. Lionel: We know St. Victor is in  Heaven since he is a saint recognised by the Church. The Church can decide that someone is a saint.
    32. That he is Heaven without the baptism of water and so contradicting  the dogma EENS  is speculation. No can claim this or verify it.
    33. The Church does not say that someone had a special charism to see people in Heaven  without the baptism of water.
    34. Any way this is a case in the past  and such a case you would agree would be unknown today to be  relevant or an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.
    35. __________________
    36.  You deny the infallibility of the universal and Ordinary Magisterium as defined ex catherda by the First Vatican Council. The Holy Ghost prevents the teaching of error and He DOES see the dead!

      Lionel: He cannot objectively, in his writings discern objective and subjective cases. Could he also be wrong on other issues?

      Introibo: Absolutely. He can be wrong but the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH HE CITES CANNOT BE WRONG!
    37. Lionel: Yes the pope can be wrong about so many things in daily life. He could make a an accidental, unintentional mistake in the ordinary magisterium too which can be corrected.He is  always correct on faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra  and in agreement with Tradition.
    38. _____________________________
    39. Introibo Ad Altare DeiNovember 12, 2015 
      Lionel: I have said that I accept BOD and BOB.I repeat I accept them.

      Introibo: You do not accept them as taught and understood by the Church. Do you believe that St. Victor is in Heaven without BOW because of BOB? If so, congratulations on your conversion! God bless! If not, you are a heretic.

      Lionel: I accept them as being implicit. I reject them as being explicit. There will be no comment from you on this point.You will not make the distinction. Since for you these cases are explicit and so an exception to the dogma EENS.

      Introibo: Here we go again. BOD and BOB have NOTHING to do with EENS, which simply states only members of the Catholic Church who die in the state of grace can be saved. 
    40. Lionel: I accept them as being implicit. I reject them as being explicit. As expected there is no comment from you.
    41. Your not saying BOD and BOB have nothing to do with EENS since they are invisible for us. You are not saying they are always unknown cases.
    42. Instead you are giving me some theology.Is this theology of yours based on BOD and BOB being visible or invisible for us?
    43. ____________________

    44. Those who receive the miracle of BOD and BOB are infused with Faith and Sanctifying Grace at the moment of death, and thereby go to Heaven as Catholics, like St. Victor. 
    45. Lionel: How do you know if St. Victor did not receive the baptism of water ? Who in the Church can say for sure that he did not receive the baptism of water? St. Francis Xavier  and the saints tell us  people have returned to earth from the dead only to be baptised with water. St. Thomas Aquinas said if there is  a man in the jungle in invincible ignorance and he is to be saved, God will send a preacher to him. He will be baptised  before he goes to Heaven.So even theologically the saints are saying that the baptism of water is necessary for all and there are no exceptions.
    46.  So who is the human being who said authoritively that St. Victor is in Heaven without the baptism of water?  What was his name?
    47. _______________
    48. YOU think a person is outside the Church unless they receive BOW, and thereby confuse the issue with EENS. 
    49. Lionel: This was the dogmatic teaching. Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) also states all need 'faith and baptism'.
    50. ____________________

      All saints are "implicit and invisible" Lionel! We know what we do on the authority of the CHURCH which you REJECT!
    51. Lionel: Yes the saints in Heaven are invisible for us in 2015.Also BOD and BOB cases are invisible for us in 2015. So in 2015 there are no visible BOD and BOB  exceptions to the dogma EENS and the need for all to receive the baptism of water to go to Heaven.
    52. _________________________
    53. Introibo: Isn't the very definition of "infallibility" the incapacity to teach error because the Holy Ghost (Who cannot teach error) ensures that the Pope and Councils can't make errors too?

      Lionel:Yes only in ex cathedra teachings in agreement with tradition.

      Introibo: Bingo! A denial of the Indefectibility of the Church and the infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as defined Ex Cathedra at The First Vatican Council!

      Introibo: Humans protected by the Holy Ghost cannot make errors in official teachings! Do you deny this of the Church?

      Lionel:Humans, popes, cannot make error ex cathedra on faith and morals.So there is no error on the issue of salvation and the dogma before 1808. After 1808 due to an oversight a particular doctrinal error has come into the Church. Also due to political pressure, humans ( popes, cardinals) overlooked the error or allowed it in the ordinary magisterium.

      Introibo: More proof Lionel holds the heretical notion that the Holy Ghost can allow the Ordinary Magisterium to err! As if GOD can be overcome by "pressure groups"!
    54. Lionel: The pope is infallible only ex cathedra i.e in the  the Extra Ordinary Magisterium .
    55. __________________________

    56. The teaching of BOD and BOB were taught by

      Pope Innocent II "Apostolicam Sedem" (1143 AD)

      The Council of Trent (1545-1563) --Decree on Justification

      Catechism of Trent (1566)
    57. Lionel:
    58. None of them said BOD and BOB are visible instead of invisible. You have inferred this. So has Fr. Anthony Cekada. Not a single one!  You do not have a single reference!
    59. __________________

      St. Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) taught BOTH BOW and BOB/BOD without BOW
    60. Lionel: No where did he say that BOD and BOB were known in the present times and so were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS, which he affirmed.

      and St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church taught in the "City of God" (397 AD):
      "Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism.
    61. _____________________
    62. Lionel: Fine if he believed that a person could be saved as such he was referring to a hypothetical case. This is speculation and good will. He does not  and cannot know of a particular case.
    63. _____________________
    64.  For He Who said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: "Everyone...that shall confess Me before men, I will confess before My Father Who art in Heaven (Matthew 10:32)" 
    65. Lionel: He is referring to a hypothetical case. He does not know of a single such person.Neithe in this text is a claim made of knowing such cases.
    66. _____________________
    67. Remember St. Augustine like St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed the literal interpretation of the dogma EENS. They could not contradict themself. Since BOD and BOB does not contradict EENS. Without the inference of them being explicit, they do not contradict EENS.
    68. _________________________

      So it all started by "pressure groups" in 1808 Lionel?
    69. Lionel: Yes lobbies and innocent Catholics assumed  theoretical and  speculative cases were  baptisms and called it a baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Then they speculated wrongly, that these new baptisms were visible and repeatable as the baptism of water. Since these cases were wrongly assumed to be explicit,to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation, they wrongly placed references to them in the Catechisms under the necessity of baptism.Catholics then started contradicting the Nicene Creed. It says there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and not three.
    70. These  new' baptisms'  had nothing to do with the necessity of baptism.
    71. The error was maintained in the catechisms, enforced in Boston in 1949 and them placed in Vatican Council II. It is now snug in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) and is supported by the traditionalists and sedevacantists.
    72. _________________________
    73.  St. Augustine clearly teaches BOB as an exception to BOW for salvation in 397 AD! 
    74. Lionel: In a theoretical, sepculative sense. It was an opinion.
    75. He clearly does not say that these cases are personally known to us or can be known to us. A theoretical case cannot be defacto exception for example in 2015 , to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.
    76. __________________________
    77. He was made a saint and Doctor of the Church! How could this be if he was a heretic? 
    78. Lionel: He also affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS just like Fr. Leonard  Feeney.Neither he nor Fr. Leonard Feeney were heretics.
    79. ____________________________
  1. All these citations prove you are as ignorant of Church history as you are of theology!
  2. Lionel: 
  3. I accept BOD and BOB. You have not been able to provide a single citation which says BOD and BOB refer to explicit cases, personally known and so are relevant to the dogma EENS or, are exceptions to all needing to formally convert with 'faith and baptism'.
  4. Not a single citation.
  5. _______________________

    I'm still waiting on citations to papal decrees, approved theologians, or councils that teach catechisms approved by the pope or by bishops with approval of the Holy See can teach error!!
  6. Lionel: Why should they issue a general statement like this ? 
  7. Anyway  even without their  citation you reject the Catechism ( 1995) as a sedevacantist.
  8. You also reject Vatican Council II even though there is no official citation saying the Church could make error.
  9. -Lionel Andrades

  1. ________________________

There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Cantate Dominio on ecumenism and other religions

Introibo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD)  has posted new comments. I re produce them here with my answers:

    1. Related image
    2. To my readers,
      I'm sure you're wondering by now, "Why does Introibo continue to engage this "reason-challenged" Man, Lionel Andrades? We get it: he's bizarre"

      It's precisely for this reason, I continue my decimation of his pathetic arguments. He's "Fenneyism on steroids." A Vatican II Feeneyite, the worst type. As I said before, the Feeneyites reject the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, and therefore do not accept what Catholics must believe.Lionel: I speak for myself. I am a Feeneyite but then so were the popes and saints before 1808.The Bible is pro- Feenyism in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.
    3.  Ironically, this puts them outside the Church as heretics even as they misunderstand Church teaching.
    4. Related image
    5. Lionel: A sedevacantist saying I am outside the Church when I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, hypothetical and invisible for us baptism of desire and baptism of blood and a  Vatican Council II in which LG 16 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases ? Which teaching have I rejected? You instead  reject Vatican Council and invisible for us and known only to God BOD and BOB.For you BOD and BOB are explicit and so you reject the defined dogma EENS. So this is also a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
    6. I hope these comments serve to help you see the sheer insanity that is Feenyism, and the futile pseudo-arguments they propose. Here we go again!

      Lionel: Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and ecumenism.Yet this is not the position held by traditionalists and sedevacantists. They infer that they can see the dead, that the deceased now in Heaven, are part of their visible reality on earth and they are not aware of this irrationality.

      Introibo: No, Lionel. This is not about seeing dead people. It is about irrationality: Yours and all Feeneyites; especially those who belong to the Vatican II sect.
    7. Lionel: If you refer to BOD and BOB as relevant to the dogma EENS you are inferring that YOU can see the dead in Heaven.So I have to keep mentioning this. This is irrational. This is the irrationality I refer to i.e BOD and BOD cases are in Heaven.So how can they be on earth, exceptions to EENS?
    8. You will not make the explicit- implicit distinction which is part of philsophy and reasoning. You will not address this specific issue now over four  months.

      Protestant SECTS are not a "means of salvation." As Pope Leo XIII taught in "Tametsi" (November 1, 1900) "Consequently, all those who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort."Lionel: The issue is does UR say that Protestant sects are a means of salvation.It does not for me. 
    9. The dogma EENS says Protestants need to convert and Vatican Council II (UR 3) refer to invisible, speculative cases of salvation among Protestants and other Christians.Since they are invisble for us they do not contradict EENS. If a  Protestant is in  Heaven it is because he is a Catholic in Heaven. In Heaven according to the dogma EENS there are only Catholics in Heaven.So the dogma says all need explicit baptism of water and UR 3 does not refer to explicit cases in our time.
    10. __________________
    11.  If one follows the teachings of Protestant sects (and we can see these sects Lionel!) you will be outside the Church and go Hell.
    12. Lionel: Yes .I agree.

      Of course, I can't see the dead but I can anticipate your stupidity: "But can we see anybody in Hell from following these sects?" It doesn't matter Lionel. It's against the Faith, just like saying "Christ COULD sin" is heretical and against the Faith, even if we can't see Him in 2015.
    13. Lionel:
    14. When  you say that BOD and BOB are relevant to EENS then you imply that you can see the dead and these deceased now in Heaven are visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Church. This is the specific argument.You do not know any one in 2015 who will die with BOD and without the baptism of water. Four months and you have not touched this issue.You probably know that the entire sede theology will crumble. Since it is based on an objective error.
    15. __________________________

      Vatican II is traditional on ecumenism? "Traditional ecumenism" is an oxymoron like "intelligent Feeneyite." Lionel is fond of invoking Cantate Domino which says, "t firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
    1. Lionel: Yes this is the citation from Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict it.
    2. So there is no contradiction to Cantate Domino, on ecumenism. Cantate Dominio says heretics  ( Protestants) and schismatics ( Orthodox Christians) need to formally convert into the Catholic Church.LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, LG 8 etc being invisible for us and known only to God are not exceptions to Cantate Dominio.They are not relevant.
    3. _______________________________
    4.  I don't see anything their about baptism with water, or no baptism of desire/blood. It clearly talks about nothing helping the non-Catholic achieve salvation, even "if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ" because they are OUTSIDE the Church and do not wish to enter. Those who receive BOB want to be united and die as Catholics within the Church.
    5. Lionel: I repeat : it does not  refer to BOD or BOB with or without the baptism of water. Neither does it state there are any exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church.Instead it suggests there are no exceptions.
    6. ________________________________
      HOWEVER, Vatican II states, "Unitatis redintegratio # 4:"On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments which derive from our common heritage and which are to be found among our separated brothers and sisters. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and the virtuous deeds in the lives of others who bear witness to Christ, even at times to the shedding of their blood."

      Vatican II praises "our separated brothers and sisters" (i.e. heretics and schismatics) who "bear witness to Christ" "Even at times to the shedding of their blood." Protestants who bear witness to the false sects and shed their blood for it are praised by Vatican II. Doesn't THIS contradict Cantate Domino, Lionel?
    7. Lionel: No it does not contradict Cantante Domino since it refers to the good things in Christians communities and churches only . They believe in Jesus. They have faith. They follow the 10 Commandments of Moses. They have the same historical liturgy as us i.e post Constantine. They use much of the Catholic Bible. They have a common heritage as us in so many aspects...
    8. Vatican Council II does not say that they do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.This could be your inference but it is not there in the text. The Council does not contradict Cantate Dominio on ecumenism. There is no contradiction on  the traditional teaching on other religions and salvation.The text has not changed ecclesiology.
    9. _____________________
    10. Introibo: The First Vatican Council was not enumerating everything taught by the universal and Ordinary Magisterium;
      Lionel: Fine. So then there should not be a problem if you agree that not everything was being enumerated.

      Introibo: There's a big problem for you!
    11. Lionel:  To say BOD and BOB are explicit cases and so they contradict 1) the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra and 2) the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is a problem for you and the other sedevacantists and traditionalists. I do not claim BOB and BOD are explicit or even relevant to EENS.-Lionel Andrades ( to be continued in the next blog post)    p.s Please excuse the numbers on the left hand side. I do not know how to delete them.
    Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases - 2

    Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases - 2


    Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases.

    Introibo: No, Trent never taught that Protestant sects were a means of salvation.
    Neither did Vatican Council II teach this. This is your interpretation of Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II.

     Remember that ALL of what is in catechism is protected from error by the Holy Ghost, not just some of it, otherwise you wouldn't know what was true from what was false.
    Lionel: You don't accept the Catechism and the popes as a sedevantist ? So why are you mentioning this?
    Also your rejection of the Catechism is because of the precise error I keep referring to. Consider LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 as being invisible for us and visible only for God and then Vatican Council II will not contradict EENS or Tradition. Then Vatican Council II will not be a basis for your sedevacantism.

     You deny this truth, so you believe catechisms can teach error. I demonstrated the is not Church teaching.
     I am referring to a precise error.Can LG 16 etc which is implicit be considered explicit? No. Yet this is the error in the interpretation of the Catechism and Vatican Council II. You will not answer this simple question: is LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) visible for invisible for you?
    If you do not use this irrational  premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism, then there is no error in either of the two.

    You claim to believe ex cathedra teaching, yet deny the ex cathedra teaching of the First Vatican Council which affirms the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
    The infallible teaching did not mention any exceptions. It did not mention BOD. Check the text of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
    Introibo: Cantate Domino (which you don't understand in your private interpretation) is talking about those OUTSIDE the Church, who don't wish to belong to Her. BOD and BOB only apply to those WHO WISH TO BE UNITED WITH THE TRUE CHURCH. Cantate Domino wasn't about BOD/BOB nor does it exclude them.
    Cantate Domino does not mention BOD and BOB. Neither does it state that  there are any exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.On the contrary it emphasised that there are no exceptions.
    For the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 BOD etc were exceptions. They are exceptions for Fr. Anthony Cekada. They were exceptions for Archbishop Lefebvre.So they were exceptions for Bishop Donald Sanborn and Bishop Bernard Fellay.

    Below I will issue a challenge to Lionel Andrades.

    You claim a heretic can be pope and catechisms promulgated by the pope can teach error. You further claim "I have cited specific references."

    Therefore, give me a specific reference to ANY pre-Vatican II council, theologian, Canon law, or papal decree that teaches
    (a) Catechisms promulgated by the pope and/or catechisms promulgated by conferences/councils of bishops with formal papal approval can teach error.
    I have given you the actual error.I have given you specific references of the error in Church documents in previous blog post.
    It is Catholic teaching that when the pope speaks ex cathedra he is infallible. The infallibility of the pope is a dogma of the Church. Similarly extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma of the Church it is an infallible teaching.
    When a church document,sedevacantist or traditionalist says BOD and BOB are exceptions to the dogma, he is implying that there are explicit cases in our reality.This is irratiional. It is also heretical. Since it contradicts the dogma on salvation and the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.

     I'll be waiting for your response with specific references!
    The Church does not teach there is error in general in a catechism and so no document has to claim it does.If there is an error it would be corrected practically.
    -Lionel Andrades

    Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases.