Here are the controversial passages again

Here is the report again.The parts in red are hypothetical references. So they cannot be exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church, with faith and baptism, in 2016.Boniface and the traditionalists will not admit it.They make the same mistake.

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit

CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER

That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.

But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Register  http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR

___________________________

 

 

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay  (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82

http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/

-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 7, 2016

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made.html

 JUNE 8, 2016

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_8.html

 JUNE 8, 2016

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay contradict the extra ordinary (ex cathedra) and ordinary magisterium http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-contradict.html

JUNE 8, 2016

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_36.html

JUNE 8, 2016

We see this conditioning in the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augistine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay :it was accepted by Lefebvre,Hildebrand,Davis and Mattei

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/we-see-this-conditioning-in-irrational.html

JUNE 9, 2016

Is it not a first class heresy for Archbishop Di Noia to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils and that too with an irrationality? Is this not heresy for you? Is this not the stuff for excommunication?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/is-it-not-first-class-heresy-for.html

JUNE 9, 2016

Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/bishop-fellay-made-mistake-and-boniface.html

JUNE 10, 2016

The issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II-with Cushingism or Feeneyism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-issue-is-how-does-boniface.html

JUNE 10, 2016
Boniface does not say that Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made a mistake, like he does in philosophy ( irrational premise and reasoning) and theology ( new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/instead-of-saying-muller-di-noia-and.html

_________________________________________