There is a mistake in Vatican Council II. The baptism of desire (Lumen Gentium 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (Ad Gentes 7) should not have been mentioned. Since these are 'zero cases' in our reality. They are invisible.This was a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter assumed what was not seen was really seen, what was invisible was visible.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.
Hypothetically, speculatively, with good will, yes, 'those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church....'. There is no such case personally known to us. There was no such case in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued. Nor was there any such known case in 1960-1965.So with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is a 'zero case'. So it should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. It was a mistake.
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."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
Again this is a reference to an unknown case. It is speculative.We can see the influence of the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him.-Ad Gentes 7
A person who is inculpably ignorant and is saved is unknown to us personally. Such a case was never an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So why is this mentioned here in Vatican Council II? It is there because the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed aninvisible case is visible.
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.-Lumen Gentium 14
In Lumen Gentium 14 the mistake on the baptism of desire being visible instead of invisible is repeated.Why mention thsi catechumen?
Now we can have two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16 and Ad Gentes 7 ( invincible ignorance) is interpreted by me as being invisible.For the magisterium it is visible.Most Catholics accept this mistake.
Ecclesia Dei must be asked to acknowledge the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Then they must be asked to interpret Vatican Council II not with Cushingism but with Feeneyism. This is rational, traditional and with the hermeneutic of continuity
Will the SSPX now ask Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite)?.
CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER, ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA, BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY MISTAKE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES
Factual mistakes in Vatican Council II are not noted on the SSPX website