SSPX canonically has to accept the false premise in Vatican Council II

The Society of St.Pius X which offers the Traditional Latim Mass could ask the Vatican how can they be canonically expected to accept a Vatican Council II with the false premise of the dead being visible

How can there be an ecclesial rupture if the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II with the added-on premise of the dead man walking ?

How can there be canonical restrictions for not accepting Vatican Council II with an irrationality ?

Canonically do we Catholics , SSPX and non SSPX, have to accept Vatican Council II with the false premise ?- Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades wrote:The Society of St.Pius X which offers the Traditional Latim Mass could ask the Vatican how can they be canonically expected to accept a Vatican Council II with the false premise of the dead being visible

How can there be an ecclesial rupture if the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II with the added-on premise of the dead man walking ?

How can there be canonical restrictions for not accepting Vatican Council II with an irrationality ?

Canonically do we Catholics , SSPX and non SSPX, have to accept Vatican Council II with the false premise ?- Lionel Andrades

Again, please demonstrate where "Vatican Council II" established the "false premise of the dead being visible" and "the dead man walking".

Anyone who would posit such an unsubstantiated "fact" is the one appearing "irrational".

As often as you've made this accusation (all of your posts have this same theme), one would think that you can produce it without much effort. I've read the applicable Council Documents, and I can found no such assertion. What am I missing?

Where is the proof that the Society of St.Pius X uses the false premise it is asked: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum

On the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum it is said ,'You have yet to demonstrate where VCII or the SSPX have said “the dead are visible” (those saved outside of visible communion with the Church).

The premise is simple, show me the evidence.'

Where is the proof it is asked, where the SSPX is using the false premise.
Here it is :
1.
Here is the First one.
SSPX SELLS HERETICAL BOOK BASED ON THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE DEAD MAN WALKING THEORY

Here is the blurb of a book being sold by the SSPX.

Sr. Sunshine says, "All nice people go to heaven."
Fr. Overreact says, "Only water-baptized Catholics go to heaven."
Both are dead wrong!

Lionel:
Only water baptized Catholics go to Heaven -yes! Unless the SSPX knows some case in 2012 which is an exception? Can Fr.Laisney name any exception in 2012 ? No he cannot but he assumes like the SSPX bishops that there are dead man walking on earth who are saved. He assumes that these cases can be explicit...

2.
Here is the Second one.
DOCTRINAL ERROR OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SSPX BISHOPS POSTED A NEW ON U.S WEBSITE

SSPX repeats heresy of rejecting Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with allegedly visible cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

The SSPX U.S website has reposted an article by Fr.Francois Laisney which indicates that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) is still struck with the dead man walking on earth virus. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have also assumed that the baptism of desire is relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

This means the SSPX still interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as a break with Tradition. So they would also be interpreted Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance etc) as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Then they blame Vatican Council II !...

3.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says:

"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Lionel: These cases are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So why mention these 'exceptions'? Is he implying that a person who follows his conscience and is saved (LG 16) is known to us and so is an exception to the dogma?

(The above quotation is often used on Traditionalist forums to criticize the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

They assume that these cases are explicit ; visible to us and then they imply that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.)

SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies",p.216

“Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.

It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

(Again supporters of the SSPX use this quotation above to imply that there are known exceptions to the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney's interpretation)

4.
It is from Rorate Caili. It is written by an SSPX supporter.I have added my comments. However see his understanding of the baptism of desire etc.

Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel:
it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.

Ecclesia Militans
Rather than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel:
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.

Ecclesia Militans
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.

On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):

Lionel:
In this list it is important to note that none of them said that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood were explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ecclesia Militans
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.

(He is implying that they all were referring to an explicit, visible baptism of desire. If they were not explicit and visible how could they be exceptions to the dogma?)

Lionel:
They all were in agrement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since the baptism of desire is never visible to us humans.

Ecclesia Militans
Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...

Lionel:
They seem unaware too that the baptism of desire etc are not defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ecclesia Militans
The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.

Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there is only one baptism, the baptism of water . This is the only explicit baptism. For salvation all people need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Magisterium as expressed through the above mentioned theologians, doctors etc.This is the teaching of the following:

St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons....

5.
(25.09.2010) on a pro-SSPX forum Fisheaters Traditional Catholic Forum I asked an administrator, (who said Abp. Lefebvre did not agree with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus) where is the text, the proof for the claim. It could not be the following text often quoted by the Society of St. Pius X?...

(For more details see the thread on this forum The False Premise in Vatican Council II )