There cannot be a New Evangelisation in Europe when priests present confusion on Church doctrine.It is confusing when they say every one needs to enter the Church but some do not.I mentioned this to a Spanish elderly priest the other day after we walked and talked after Mass.He worked for many years in Madagascar where the churches are full he said.
There cannot be a new evangelisation when every one says all in Europe need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation except for those saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) and the baptism of desire(BOD).This is confusion. Either every one needs to enter the Church or every one does not need to enter the Churc. It's one or the other.
Do not say there are exceptions since you do not know of any exception in 2015. Neither does any one else know of someone who will be saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
So when Vatican Council II mentioned being saved in I.I and BOD it was a mistake.These passages should not have been there in the Council.
Why mention non-existent cases? These are superflous passages. Some are direct and others indirect.
DIRECT REFERENCES TO EXCEPTIONS BY NAME
Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 directly mention I.I and BOD by name. This is a superflous reference.Since they do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). They do not contradict the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14 which affirm EENS.
Why are they mentioned? I.I and BOD would have to be known to be an exception to EENS.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.
INDIRECT REFERENCES TO EXCEPTIONS TO EENS
Unitatitis Redintegratio( UR 3),Vatican Council II indirectly suggests there is an an exception to EENS. Or it could be wrongly interpreted as an exception to EENS.It mentions a Christian being saved, who is in imperfect communion with the Church. Again this is a zero-case. This passage should not have been there.We do not know any one in 2015, for example, who is saved in imperefct communion with the Church. So this case (UR 3) would not be an exception to EENS.
The confusion has come into Vatican Council II because of the mistake made in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.It was not corrected by popes or cardinals.
There was a mistake made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. Since BOD and I.I are not exceptions to Feeneyism.They have nothing to do with the dogma.They are zero cases for us human beings.They could only be known to God if they existed.There is no known salvation outside the Church as Fr.Francesco Marchetti Selvagggiani believed.It is a fact of life that we cannot see I.I and BOD cases on earth.
Over the centuries there could not be known salvation outside the Church. Who among us can know of someone saved who did not have to be a formal member of the Catholic Church ? How could any one in the past say that St. X went to Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church? How would he or she know? Since to know, he or she would have to go to Heaven to confirm it and return to earth to tell us about it.
There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church which says someone went to Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. No new Revelation says someone was saved with I.I and BOD and without the baptism of water, and this was known to us personally.
So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an empirical mistake.It was a factual error.
WE CAN STILL UNDO THE ERROR OF 1949
The final conclusion today, to remove the confusion, should be - we do not know any one in 2015 ( or the past 60 or more years during our lifetime) who is saved outside the Church.So all need to be card carrying members of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All need to have their names on the parish Baptism Register to avoid Hell.
If there is someone saved in I.I and BOD ( or are UR 3, NA 2 or LG 8 cases) it would be followed with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is the dogmatic teaching.
There are no exceptions to traditional EENS.The centuries old dogmatic teaching is stil the same.Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani was wrong. The St.Benedict Center in Boston was correct and Cardinal Richard Cushing was irrational.
This is the doctrine we must keep in mind when evangelising in Europe or abroad.There cannot be any exceptions to centuries old Feeneyism.
I told the Spanish priest we could not meet anyone on the street, as we walked, who was saved in I.I and BOD. We could not meet anyone whom we could judge as going to Heaven without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).How could we meet an exception to the dogma on the streets of Rome? There are no such cases in 2015.It is important to know this in evangelisation.