Bishop Bernard Fellay could have been critical of the theology of the Novos Ordo Mass as evil

The Traditional Latin Mass held before 1940 had the ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Traditional Latin Mass now offered in Rome does not have this ecclesiology.Their theology is influenced by the false premise.

The Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) is welcomed in new parishes and dioceses since like the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass, they believe there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They were formerly in the Society of St.Pius X. This was their formation. So for them Vatican Council II contradicts itself; LG 16 versus AG 7.Vatican Council II is also a break with the past.

It is this new theology which accompanies the Novos Ordo Mass, which Bishop Bernard Fellay strongly criticized. So did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The SSPX website recognizes that the Novus Ordo Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus and acknowledges this point with respect.

The present ecclesiology/theology of the Novus Ordo Mass, its homilies, are Protestant.So perhaps in this sense Bishop Fellay means the Novos Ordo Mass is 'evil'.

Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass accept Protestant theologies on salvation, modesty, sin. If they believed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus all this could change. Protestants are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) unless they convert before death.

Lionel Andrades wrote:The Traditional Latin Mass held before 1940 had the ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Traditional Latin Mass now offered in Rome does not have this ecclesiology.Their theology is influenced by the false premise.

So beginning in 1940 "the ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus" was absent from the TLM?

What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied. There is no "false premise".

Lionel Andrades wrote:The Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) is welcomed in new parishes and dioceses since like the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass, they believe there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They were formerly in the Society of St.Pius X. This was their formation. So for them Vatican Council II contradicts itself; LG 16 versus AG 7.Vatican Council II is also a break with the past.

Rubbish. They do not believe there are "explicit exceptions to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", but only explicit exceptions to the divine precept requiring external material membership when necessity frustrates visible incorporation, and the proper dispositions are present.

Your egregious error is based on the "false premise" that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not include both in re and in voto unity, when it most certainly does.

Lionel Andrades wrote:It is this new theology which accompanies the Novos Ordo Mass, which Bishop Bernard Fellay strongly criticized. So did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

It is not, the theology is as old as St. Cyprian, while the theology of invincible ignorance (still requiring supernatural faith) is a rather recent development in doctrine. Neither of which changes the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but only expands upon the subjective elements of the dogma, rather than focusing solely on the objective.

Lionel Andrades wrote:The SSPX website recognizes that the Novus Ordo Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus and acknowledges this point with respect.

Respect; really?

From the SSPX website, http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm:

Archbishop Lefebvre ... wrote:

The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29 [appendix 2])

The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.

An "evil" Mass that "was not properly promulgated (and therefore does not have force of law)" and is "of doubtful validity" is recognized by the SSPX as "the Sacrifice of Jesus and acknowledges this point with respect".

Good one.

Lionel Andrades wrote:The present ecclesiology/theology of the Novus Ordo Mass, its homilies, are Protestant. So perhaps in this sense Bishop Fellay means the Novos Ordo Mass is 'evil'.

They are not, and, his reasons for the SSPX considering it "evil" "doubtful" and "illicitly promulgated (without the force of law") are well known, and disgraceful.

Lionel Andrades wrote:Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass accept Protestant theologies on salvation, modesty, sin. If they believed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus all this could change. Protestants are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) unless they convert before death.

Lionel, go pound sand.

Catholics who don't submit to the living authoritative Magisterium are on the way to Hell according to VCII, unless they convert before death.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
The Traditional Latin Mass held before 1940 had the ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Traditional Latin Mass now offered in Rome does not have this ecclesiology.Their theology is influenced by the false premise.
So beginning in 1940 "the ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus" was absent from the TLM?

What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied. There is no "false premise".

Lionel:
Before the 1940's extra ecclesiam nulla salus was taken for granted at the Traditional Latin Mass. There was no false premise at that time. The false premise came about when the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiamn nulla salus. He assumed that these cases were relevant to the dogma.

The secular media supported him.The SSPX also picked up this error. For them them the baptism of desire is explicit and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

This is also the position of the FSSP here. They will say that non Catholic religions are false paths to salvation and will also say that the Church does not hold the rigorist interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney since it recognizes the baptism of desire etc as exceptions.

Mryan
It is not, the theology is as old as St. Cyprian, while the theology of invincible ignorance (still requiring supernatural faith) is a rather recent development in doctrine.

Lionel:
Even if it is of a recent development it is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is not an exception.

So a priest could offer the Novus Ordo Mass today and hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and believe all need to enter the Church formally in 2013 to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.This would not contradict Vatican Council II. The FSSP could offer the TLM or the Novus Ordo Mass holding this view and there would be no contradiction.

It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent… It represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the mystery.2
Is the NEW MASS LEGIT ? 5-25-2011
from the SSPX U.S website.

A criticism of the New Rite cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination, whether it is a fit rite for embodying and enacting this august Sacrifice.
Question 5
What is wrong with the Novus Ordo Missae?
from the SSPX U.S website.