Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower : Archbishop Pozzo: Bishop Fellay to Accept Personal Prelature Arrangement
Susan,
I have read the book.
His reasoning his correct but it is based on the premise of LG 14( known catechumen saved without the baptism of water) and LG 16 ( known person in invincible ignorance saved without the baptism of water).
The key to understanding this is the word 'known'.
Without the word 'known' LG 14, LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors on non Christian and non Catholic religions.
With 'known' cases of the baptism of desire etc the doctrine on salvation was changed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Then the same reasoning was used in Vatican Council II.
I was in communication last week with two lay members of the SSPX, speakers and writers.They agreed that we cannot see the soul of any one in 2016.This is something obvious.They agreed there there were no baptism of desire cases in 2016.
So I asked them if I could quote them saying this, which is obvious to about every one.
They both said NO!
They understand!
In Rome a priest cannot be incardinated who says there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire etc.
Rome Vicariate understands!
A priest who offered the Latin Mass for the Militia Christ at the church San Giuseppe a Capo le Case Rome, said just this and I quoted him on my blog.
He was not there for Mass the next week.He got a phone call from Bishop Matteo Zuppi who also them visited the church.
The next time I met that priest he was reticient.
All he said that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water) in the present times.
Archbishop Lefebvre innocenly overlooked this.
It was the responsibility of Cardinal Rztinger and the CDF to have informed him.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct that Vatican Council II ( with known BOD and I.I) is a rupture with Tradition and he expresses this view in this book.
He used the premise which was an innovation in salvation theology, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney Boston Case.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
There is no denial from traditionalists and pro SSPX bloggers.Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake.It was an objective mistake.He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/there-is-no-denial-from-pro-sspx.html