There is a mistake in Vatican Council II and it still is not on the radar of Catholics. No one has reported on it yet.
To reject the old ecclesiocentrism of the past they needed an exception.So Cardinal Cushing, as Archbishop of Boston approved this exception in an extraordinary Letter from the Holy Office 1949 addressed to him, relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.The exception came with the Letter.
The mistake in the Letter was to infer that there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in 1949.
Someone in the past could not be an exception to the dogma EENS in 1949. Not that there was such a known case before 1949.
Someone in the future could not be an exception to the dogma EENS in 1949.It would have to be a known case in the present times(1949) for there to be an exception.
So there was no exception to the dogma EENS and the magisterium in Rome and Cardinal Cushing in Boston assumed that there was such a case.
The Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston had rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. This was reported in the Boston media. The Church had changed its teaching on salvation the newspapers said.There was no contradiction from the Archbdiocese of Boston.There was no contradiction from Rome.
This was expressed in Nostra Aetate.It refers to salvation in Jesus without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church.
This would be the ecclesiology accepted by Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.It is there in Redemptoris Missio and other Church documents.
But now we know that there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS.
There is no known case of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2017.None.
So there is a mistake in Nostra Aetate.
Nostra Aetate has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since it was wrongly assumed by Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits that there were known exceptions to EENS.They made a mistake and changed the ecclesiology of the Church.Or someone chose a mistake and changed the ecclesiology of the Church.
This is not just something of the past.Today there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is on assuming hypothetical cases are hypothetical. The other is like Cardinal Cushing, assuming hypothetical cases are objectively and personally known.They are not hypothetical.
So for me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc would refer to hypothetical cases only. So they would not be exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS.
There was also a mix up between what is invisible and visible, subjective and objective, implicit and explicit for Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits when they were drafting a document based on a philosophical error to create a new fantasy theology in the Catholic Church.
Since there was known salvation outside the Church for them, Nostra Aetate suggests that a Muslim or Jew could be saved in his religion. The same mistake is made with reference to Christians in Unitatis Redintigratio 3.
This is human error.It cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.It is an objective error. We cannot objectively see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire. We cannot know of any one on earth who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Yet Cardinal Cushing assumed there were such known cases in Heaven who were explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS on earth.
There are many mistakes in Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades