In a dialogue with a priest the other day on the Internet he agreed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water, referred to a case which is physically invisible for us human beings on earth.The baptism of desire cannot be seen or given like the baptism of water.
So when Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger in the interview with Avvenire said that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) was no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries, he means there is a development with the baptism of desire and being saved in invincibe ignorance.For him they refer to VISIBLE CASES!
Since they are visible and known in personal cases for him the baptism of desire etc are 'a development' theologically. They are 'theological exceptions' to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
Cardinal Ratzinger and the International Theological Commission have said the same thing in two theological papers of the ITC.It is supported by Cardinal Luis Ladaria sj, the present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.He was the former President of ITC when the error was made in ITC documents.
So were they wrong, were they irrational, did they make a factual mistake I asked the priest?
He will not say Yes.
He agrees that the baptism of desire etc refer to invisible cases and so Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) is a reference to a hypothetical case.
Yet he will also not say that LG 16 does not contradict the interpretation of the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.For the liberal cardinals LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries.
Yet it is with this reasoning that cardinals Ratzinger,Kasper and other liberals interpret Vatican Council II. They use an irrational premise to create a non traditional and heretical conclusion.They with their executive power in the Vatican, they call it magisterial.