No one has issued a statement protesting against Cardinal Muller's error

No one has issued a statement protesting against Cardinal Muller's error

No one has issued a statement protesting against Cardinal Muller's error
We humans cannot know of any particular case of someone saved in invincible ignorane of Jesus and the Church.We cannot know of someone saved with the baptism of desire or blood, all without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.If there are such people they would only be known to God.
Neither can we say that someone in the past is a known case of salvation outside the Church.No one in the past could have seen an invisible person. And an invisible person cannot be an exception in the present times, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation in 2017 and there are no practical exceptions.
MULLER AND ARROYO TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT THERE IS KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCHHowever Cardinal Muller and Raymond Arroyo continue to assume that there are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2017 or in the past. So there is salvation outside the Church for the both of them and this was indirectly expressed in the May 25 interview of EWTN The World Over.
They interpret Vatican Council II by assuming there is known salvation outside the Church and this is incorrect reasoning.It is irrational.It is bad philosophy.Common sense tells us that an unknown person in the past cannot be a known exception to the dogma EENS in the present times.Yet this was the deception of the cardinals in 1949 Boston and Rome and then again at Vatican Council II(1965) and the popes let it pass.No one protests against it even today.
THEY HAD A CHOICE BUT NEGLECTED IT
So Raymond Arroyo and Cardinal Muller repeated this error when they really had a choice. They could have interpreted magisterial documents without this contradiction, just as I do.Then they could accept 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS( if they really wanted to) and a Vatican Council II which will not contradict it.
MULLER'S INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IS FALSE, IRRATIONAL,NON TRADITIONAL WITH BAD PHILOSOPHY CREATING A NEW THEOLOGY
Cardinal Muller's interpretation of Vatican Council II was false, irrational, a deception and bad philosophy.It is non traditional and heretical.It is the false conclusion made with a false premise.He assumes that there invisible cases of the baptism of desire, for example, so there is known salvation outside the Church for him.We can see and meet people saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), without the baptism of water, for him, and so there is known salvation outside the Church.So every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church as a member is his false conclusion.Outside the the Church there is salvation he told Edward Pentin in the interview for the National Catholic Register when Pentin asked him about the dogma EENS.
No one protested after reading that interview.
No one protested since about every one assumes invisible cases are visible and so there is known salvation outside the Church.
Similarly in March 2016 no one protested when Pope Benedict XVI said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.Since for him there was a development with Vatican Council II.No one issued a statement saying there is no development with Vatican Council II since there is no known salvation outside the Church.There are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to EENS ( Feeneyite) in 2016.So Vatican Council II (Feeneyite-invisible cases are only invisible) was not a development of rupture with EENS according to the 16th century magisterium.
NO ONE WILL PROTEST
Similarly no one will protest and correct Cardinal Muller's interview on May 25 when he indicated that the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has to interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.
This has to be accepted by all Catholics.

BISHOPS, CARDINALS AND TWO POPES ASSUME INVISIBLE CASES ARE VISIBLE

Since he and all the bishops, cardinals and the two popes assume invisible cases are visible in 2017.So the SSPX has to sign a document affirming Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known and visible exceptions in the present times to the dogma EENS, as interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century.This irrationality is politically correct with the Left and Cardinal Muller and the rest of the hierarchy have made peace with it.

Like Vatican Council II, Cardinal Muller and Raymond Arroyo interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.They assume there is known salvation outside the Church and invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are personally known and seen in May 2017.So there are e known cases of salvation outside the Church.They are examples of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This was also Cardinal Ratzinger's reasoning when he put together the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

SSPX WILL NOT PROTEST
The SSPX will not protest since they use the same reasoning to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II, except that they reject the conclusion( Vatican Council II-Cushingite) while Cardinal Muller and Raymond Arroyo accept it.

FR.LEONARD FEENEY'S COMMUNITIES WILL NOT PROTEST
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA will not protest since they too interpret Vatican Council II with invisible cases being visible.
The liberals and Masons will not protest since they approve of magisterial documents being interpreted with the false premise to create a non traditional and heretical conclusion.
So another year is to go by and the same error will be repeated once again.-Lionel Andrades

May 28, 2017
There are liturgical abuses and a lot of errors in the dogmatic sphere -Cardinal Gerhard Muller on the SSPX
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/there-are-litur…

---