CathInfo.com

So did Williamson. So did Lefebvre. And so did Fellay himself. All using the well known old modernist canard of "saved in any religion" doesn't mean "saved by that religion."

What news does Fellay bring? "Rome does no longer believes EENS"? What? Bergoglio gave up that teaching of V2?  



Nothing new under the sun.

English isn't Bishop Fellay's first language, so he easily could've screwed up one word here or there.  But this is the substance of the debate.

Feeney = Salvation can only be had by visible members of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least those who explicitly have the thought of "I want to join the Catholic Church" in their minds.

Lefebvre = Salvation can only be had by those who are inside the Catholic Church, either by being a member, OR, if one is in a non Catholic religion, by the extraordinary gifts of perfect contrition and at least supernatural faith in God as rewarder and punisher.

Modernist = Salvation can be had in any religion, or various things that sound like that.

Now obviously perfect contrition doesn't grow on trees.  If for some reason someone who has only ever heard of Islam (say) actually has perfect contrition, it might be accurate to say that in a sense they are actually Catholic, even though they don't realize it.  But we (people who agree with Lefebvre) still wouldn't say the religion of Islam saves.  Its damnable.  

I think V2 is vague on this subject.  Could you read it in a way that basically says what Lefebvre says?  Yeah.  Could you read it as basically what Bishop Barron says?  Yeah.  And that's the problem.  

What if the FSSPX agreed to give in to Vatican II in exchange for being the only ones allowed to do the traditional Mass?  

And the Indult, FSSP and others who recognize Bergoglio as having authority are all joined into the SSPX...

Great point.  Once the new-sspx is accepted back into new-rome, I do think there will be a consolidation of some type.