AL’s reduction of the moral law to a “general rule” is the rhetorical device by which “exceptions” to the rule are introduced in “certain cases” involving what AL euphemistically describes as an “irregular union” or “irregular situations” (78, 298, 301, 305 & note 351)—meaning, of course, those who “are divorced and remarried, or simply living together (297)” in a state of continuing public adultery or simple fornication.
At the same time it reduces the moral law to a “set of rules” to which there can be practical exceptions—as with any mere rule...- Christopher Ferrara
The same thing was done with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire were pracitcal exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were mentioned in Vatican Council II.
This is a mistake.
There are no practical exceptions to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) when it states all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc are not a 'practical exception' to all needing to be a card carrying member of the Church; all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
So Christopher Ferrara could also point out this error in Vatican Council II and not only in AL, and ask the two popes to affirm the traditional interpretation of EENS according to the Church Councils, the 16th century missionaries and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.-Lionel Andrades