The SSPX bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre interpret Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) as a rupture with EENS and so they reject Vatican Council II.So the Vatican Council II which they understand, is always a rupture with EENS

You are accusing Fellay of denying extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)? And dont even quote him doing so? Are you serious?

Lionel: I know EENS according to the Church Councils (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441) and the missionaries of the 16th century. They did not mention any exceptions. They did not claim that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. For them hypothetical cases are not exceptions to EENS.

1) Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops  accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter considers unknown and hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.So for this Cardinal Francesco Marchetti's  Letter in 1949 there are exceptions to traditional EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I are relevant.

This is a denial of EENS for me. Since I can affirm EENS without invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I being an exception. There is no rupture with Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 for me,

The SSPX bishops cannot say this.On their website they cosider BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to Feneeyite EENS so they reject what they call the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.Every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation. They condemn Fr. Leonard Feeney. 

2) This is also their position in a book written by fr. Francois Laisney.

3) Since hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions or relevant to EENS for them they also assume a hypothetical reference in LG 8 (subsistit it) is an exception to EENS. I have cited this earlier. Elsewhere Bishop Fellay assumes that UR 3 on ecumenism is a rupture with the dogma EENS and an ecumenism of return.(This has also been stated by the former District Superior of Italy). Again hypothetical cases are a rupture with EENS for him. He is denying traditional EENS.

These are just three references which show that the SSPX bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre wrongly assumed hypothetical cases of BOD etc could be exceptions to EENS. Also they did not support Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 16 and other hypothetical cases not being an exception to EENS. This is possibile. It is possible for me. Vatican Council II would be traditional and not a rupture with EENS or the past ecclesiology of the Church. I call this interpretation of the  Council , Vatican Council II Feeneyite or Vatican Council II without the false premise,The fact that they did not know or did not affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) is a rejection of EENS Feeneyite.

Summary

1.The SSPX bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS.This is expressed today on the SSPX website(See Feeneyism).This is a rejection of EENS.

2.They interpret Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) as a rupture with EENS and so they  reject Vatican Council II.So the Vatican Council II which they understand, is always a rupture with EENS.

Vatican Council II with LG 16 referring to only hypothetical cases, is not a rupture with EENS, it is Feeneyite.But for the SSPX bishops Vatican Council II is a rupture.They have chosen the irrational interpretation. Again this is a rejection of Vatican Council II(Feeneyite), EENS and the past ecclesiology of the Church which depended on EENS.

-Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 3, 2018

For Abp Marcel Lefebvre and Bp Bernard Fellay there are physically known cases of the baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/for-abp-marcel-lefebvre-and-bp-bernard.html

JANUARY 3, 2018

I have cited many cases where Bishop Fellay inferred that there are physically known cases when the reference is to only hypothetical and unknown people in our reality e.g Lumen Gentium 8 (subsist it)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/i-have-cited-many-cases-where-bishop.html