Today is the feast day of St.Francis Xavier and the two popes under the influence of a lobby are not allowed to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as the Jesuit missionary did. They have to pretend that the baptism of desire refers to a personally known exception to the dogma. The result is that the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes with this new and irrational theology in the Church.
Heresy is the norm and orthodoxy will result in a priest or nun being suspended.Doctrine has been turned inside out in the Catholic Church.
If a Catholic would affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS he would find that other teachings of the Church come in place. Even Vatican Council II would be rational and traditional.
By affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS he would be saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.Practicaly there are zero cases.There is no known salvation outside the Church.
1.So there can be nothing in Vatican Council II which could really be an exception to EENS as it was understood by St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis Xavier.
2.It also means that in the past there could not have been a baptism of desire case, which was known to human beings and so was an exception to the dogma EENS.
3.Similarly when we read a reference to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance, we must remember, that it does not refer to a known case.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS I have to repeat.
So when the Holy Office 1949 inferred that the baptism of desire was an exception to EENS, the cardinals made a mistake.
The same people who made that mistake in 1949 were also active at Vatican Council II, like Cardinal Richard Cushing and the U.S Jesuits. So again in principle they assumed that hypothetical cases like the baptism of desire were objectively seen and known and so were exceptions to the dogma EENS.They extended the list to 'imperfect communion in the Church'(UR 3), 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) in other religions etc.
This was irrational but now it had become official and magisterial and even Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice the error.
This was a mistake in the Church.There were priests who affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus based on the text of the three Church Councils which defined it.But ecclesiastical masonry rejected it.Any one who supported 'Feeneyism' would be penalised by forces within and outside the Church.Even popes gave in.
Now if a priest or theologian says he affirms the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and the baptism of desire refers to a hypothetical case only and not to someone whom we can personally know, he changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II with Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so there are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to Ad Gentes 7 and also Lumen Gentium 14 which supports the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
When the priest says he affirms Feeneyite EENS with the baptism of desire being hypothetical and an imaginary case he is saying that there is still only an ecumenism of return. UR 3 etc do not contradict the dogma EENS, since it is a reference to a hypothetical case.
This priest would be saying that outside the Church there is no salvation and all Jews ,Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists need to enter the Church, 'with faith and baptism' to avoid Hell and there is no known salvation outside the Church.Even if someone maintained that there was the possibility of a non Catholic being saved outside the Church,in his religion, it would be an unknown case and so not relevant or an exception to EENS.
This priest based on Feeneyite EENS see the importance of having all political and social legislation based on the Social Kingship of Christ the King.
All this has come about simply by affirming Feeneyite EENS in which the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical possibilities known only to God if they existed.
In this way today we can go back to the same ecclesiology of St. Francis Xavier and Vatican Council II is not an obstacle.