Telling it like it is : what I believe

Today afternoon I was telling a Franciscan Friar that I believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14)  which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation and I do not know any one saved without 'faith and baptism'; without being a formal member of the Catholic Church.So what I believe on salvation is the teaching of the magisterial documents before and after Vatican Council II.I support the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.1257) when it says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.Neither do I know of any other means.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE NARROW GATE

So if any says that this is not the teaching of the Church, I cite the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). They are based on Jesus' teaching ( John 3:5, Mk:16:16, Matt.7:13-16).

If someone refers to the baptism of desire without the baptism of water, I say I cannot meet anyone saved as such.There are no such cases known to me.Neither was there any such case known to the Franciscan Friar.Also no one in the past could have known someone saved without the baptism of water.

So I believe in the dogma EENS and in general we cannot know of any exception on earth.

So if any one says there are known exceptions to the dogma, as was suggested by this Franciscan Friar, he is irrational.

INNOVATION IN 1949

In 1949 the Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake. It was an innovation in the Church.The hypothetical case of the baptism of desire could not be an explicit exception to the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.No one in 1949 could see a baptism of desire case in Heaven. No one could know of someone saved without the baptism of water.Physically this was not possible. This is something obvious.

So there should have been no reference in Vatican Council II to 'those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel'(AG 7).This is a superflous line and comes from the error in the Letter of the Holy Office when what is invisible is assumed to be visible. Then it is concluded that there is a known exception to EENS.

Similarly this line is superflous, dead wood, flotsam and jetsam:

'Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." (AG 7) This is a reference to personally unknown cases for us .They are hypothetical cases. If they existed they would only be known to God. However since the Letter (1949) made an objective error and it was not noticed, the error is placed here in Vatican Council II.This is a mistake. It is like a theme, an error-them in Vatican Council II.

The Council Fathers made a mistake since there cannot be ( known) salvation outside the Church.

WHY WAS THIS MENTIONED IN LG 14?

The same error is there in Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.(LG 14)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.(LG 14).

Salvation outside the Church, outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, was possible for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 approved by Rome and the Archdiocese of Boston. Salvation outside the Church ? Where is there known salvation outside the Church? Who do you know who is saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church.No one. Yet it seems as if Vatican Council II was called to implement the error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.Here is another example.
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.(UR 3) 

Other examples of hypothetical cases being confused as being explicit is there in LG 8, LG 16, NA 2, AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc.

NO CONFUSION FOR ME

Since for me these are hypothetical cases, there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 4) supports St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and numerous other saints on EENS.It supports me.-Lionel Andrades