Well, if you enjoy post-conciliar errors, then, the Schoenbornian Catechism may be an 'excellent suggestion', e.g.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
I do not adore together with Muslims lone Allah, I adore Triune God. Therefore, I think I will stay with the Gasparri's or Trent Catechism.
The objective error was initially made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to explicit cases, personally known who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So then it was wrongly inferred that there were known exceptions to the traditional, exclusivist ecclesiology.So an irrational premise (visible-invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc) produced a non traditional and heretical conclusion( there is known salvation outside the Church).
So the cardinals at Vatican Council II then wrongly assumed that there was known salvation outside the Church.The Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1995) has picked up this error in CCC 846 and 1257.
So Vatican Council II in 841(above) suggests that a Muslim can be saved since there is salvation outside the Church. We know however that there cannot be any known exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.So 841 refers to a hypothetical case.It would of course ,in reality be followed by the baptism of water in the Catholic Church since this is the de fide teaching of three Church Councils.
However we do not have to reject Vatican Council II.We just assume that N.841 refers to a theoretical case and common sense tells us this is what it is.It is hypothetical.
We would come across the case of someone being saved in invincible ignorance or the catechumen saved with the desire for the baptism of water which he received or did not receive before he died.We must remember, that it is a reference to a hypothetical case.It is speculation with good will.Personally no one was known as such. It would not be physically possible.
It is important to note that the liberal theologians and even the traditionalists, interpret being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to personally known cases, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. They go back into history and use the irrational premise.
Even Redemptoris Missio refers to a 'presumed ecclesiocentrism of the past'. For Cardinal Ratzinger there was no ecclesiocentrism in the past too, since he has used the irrational premise to re-interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.
It is like when we say that a Catholic can be saved with 'perfect contrition' even if dies without the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This is speculation since we cannot know of any such case if it did happen. -Lionel Andrades