I have shown on the last blog post how Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay in public statements have confused hypothetical cases as being objective and with this confusion have concluded that there are 'practical exceptions' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpretated over the centuries.
They have contradicted the Extraordinary magisterium ( ex cathedra) by rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which was defined by three Church Councils and called an 'infallible teaching' by Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949( First Part).They assume hypothetical cases are explicitly known to be exceptions to EENS.So they have changed the understanding of this dogma, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries. Cardinal Muller, like Pope Benedict, calls it ' a development'.
They have also contradicted Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism, that is,hypothetical cases are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma EENS.It does not contradict the 'strict interpretation ' of the dogma,as it was understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay when they asssume hypothetical cases are explicit, they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
Like the rest of the contemporary magisterium they interpret the Nicene Creed as saying 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance'. So for them, there is not one known baptism, which is visible and repeatable and which is the baptism of water, instead, there is more than one objective baptism.This change in the Nicene Creed for me, at least is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
They use an irrational premise ( there are known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water/ hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire are visible, explicit, objective).With the irrational premise they reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion ( there are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS).-Lionel Andrades
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit