They didn't know!

Fr.Anthony Cekada in his research on the baptism of desire did not know that there was no known case of the catechumen who dies before receiving the baptism of water which he desired- and was subsequently saved.This is a speculative case.It was a straw man.

Bishop Sanborn did not know that LG 14 ( baptism of desire) is  an imaginary case.

Louie Verrecchio believes UR 3 contradicts Tradition, the teachings on the one true faith. So UR 3 does not refer to an imaginary case for him too.

Even for Bishop Fellay invisible cases in Vatican Council II are visible exceptions to Tradition.1

John Salza and Robert Siscoe did not know all this too. They did not mention it in their book True or False Pope.

If they knew it Vatican Council II would be different. 

Who is going to tell them? Even Cardinal Muller does not know it.2

-Lionel Andrades

1.

BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/sspx-bishops-did-not-know-that-error.html

2.

CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER : MISTAKES HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES.

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

'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.”', this refers to a hypothetical case.Why is it mentioned as an exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation? Why ? Since Cardinal Muller considers it an explicit exception!

'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.' Again. This is a hypothetical case. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.

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

'Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church'. Why, because they are known cases in the present times? They are explicit for us? So they are exceptions to the dogma?

'The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities.'So what? Why mention it with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? What is the connection with this invisible for us reference and the dogma? Is LG 8 referring to an expicit case for Bishop Fellay?

'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)' O.K. But this is speculation with goodwill. This is not a case of someone personallyknown.So it is not a practical exception to EENs.To assume it is an exception would be subjectivism, something like Protestant situation ethics  in morals. UR 3 refers to something which is implicit and not explicit.It is known only to God and is not objective for us.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/cardinal-muller-archbishop-di-noia-and.html