In principle the Vatican Council II Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible.
In principle they assumed people in Heaven are objectively visible on earth.
In principle they assumed that we can know of non Catholics on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
In general, as a norm, the Principle of Non Contradiction was violated what is invisible was inferred to be visible and then non traditional conclusions were made.
There are philosophical mistakes in Vatican Council II, objective mistakes.Errors in empirical observation.
From professors of philosophy to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the two popes they are teaching a lie.
The cardinals and priest-professors will continue to assume that the baptism of desire refers to a visible case in the present times. Then they will infer that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.
For Catholic professors, of philosophy and theology, it is not un-ethical to lie by inferring that the baptism of desire cases refers to visible and known people. Yet this is the magisterial heresy, the lie imposed upon on them by the Vatican and they have to teach it. There is no choice.
1.In this way Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 14 etc) becomes a rupture with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a LIE they maintain.
2.By confusing what is invisible as being visible, it is wrongly assumed that the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston did not make a mistake.They were not in heresy for rejecting or re-interpreting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.This is a LIE .They were in heresy. They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and suggest tht the magisterium has not made a mistake.They LIE .
Lumen Gentium 14 ( those who know) was based on a wrong inference.It was based on the LIE.We do not know of any one saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.So it cannot be said that only those who 'know' need to enter the Church and not all people in general.
Based on the LIE they have Unitatis Redintigratio suggest that there is known salvation for someone saved in imperfect communion with the Church.Why did they have to mention it? There is no such person known.Also now UR 3 can be interpreted as being hypothetical.Then their LIE is exposed.
Based on the LIE of there being known cases saved in other religions with elements of sanctification and truth we have Lumen Gentium 8.Why did they mention it? Since they assumed there was known salvation as such without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This is a LIE.
There is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church and so we do not know of any non Catholic saved due to 'good and holy' things in his religion.For Nostra Aetate 2 to suggest this or be interpreted as such, was a LIE.
Who among us knows of some category of people saved because the Catholic Church subsists outside its visible boundaries (Lumen Gentium 8-subsists it). This is all speculation based on the LIE of known salvation outside the Church.
These are all hypothetical cases and they have nothing to do with the traditional Catholic teaching on salvation.To pretend that they refer to known cases saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, without faith and baptism, is a LIE.
A major Church Council makes a wrong inference based on a lie and this is a theme, something accepted in principle. This was Vatican Council II.
Here are the questions 1 that Catholic professors in Rome, and many priests too, would not like to answer.They do not want to be quoted.It exposes THE LIE.
How can they say that it was Vatican Council II itself, which was based on a new theology whose foundation was a lie?
1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it and is allegedly saved.Is this a hypothetical case for you?
My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.
It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.
2.So is this case of a catechumen who is saved with the 'baptism of desire' known or unknown for you ?
He is always unknown for me. He can only be known to God if he existed.
3.So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.
4.Would it violate the Principle of Non Contradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?
My answer is Yes since it is being assumed that someone invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and is known.Someone who is not concrete and tangible is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.
5.Similarly this case of an un-seen and known catechumen who is saved with the desire for the baptism of water,in the past too, would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases? Yes.It cannot be known. It is always an invisible case for us human beings.
A. Do we personally know people saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?
My answer is that we cannot see them. They are not physically visible .They are not personally known to us in our time and space.
B. Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there cannot be any known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were never exceptions.The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error.
C.So when Vatican Council II mentions this catechumen (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16),along with orthodox passages, which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, was it a mistake?
It was a mistake for me. Since these are 'zero cases' in our reality, they are not 'practical exceptions' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.I can read Vatican Council II while noting that these cases are hypothetical and theoretical only.