The fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but how you interpret it,with Cushingism or Feeneyism,with the false premise or without it.

Both St. Thomas Aquinas and the Holy Office under Pius XII speak of baptism of desire.

Lionel:

Yes and I accept the baptism of desire (BOD) since I am aware that only God would know of a BOD case and so BOD would not be an exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So St. Thomas Aquinas like St. Augustine also affirms the ' strict '  interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Regarding the man in the forest in ignorance who was to be saved St. Thomas said God would send a preacher to him.

In Mystici Corporis,Quanta Cura  etc there are references to the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).The popes and saints have referred to them.

Though Pius XII in Mystici Corporis does not state that the BOD,BOB and I.I refer to known people saved outside the Church.He speaks hypothetically.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas refers to a hypothetical case. Since obviously a real case could only be known to God.

Similarly the Catechism of the Council of Trent only refers to 'the desire therof' without stating that it can be personally known on earth.So I affirm hypothetical- for- us BOD.I would call this BOD ( Feeneyite).

The problem arose with  the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.It considered BOD, BOB and I.I exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.In other words there are known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for them to be exceptions to EENS.

For instance, there would have to be someone in particular saved this year with BOD,BOB and I.I and saved without the baptism of water in the Church.Only then we could say,'Hey look there is salvation outside the Church, the dogma EENS has been contradicted. Look at this person Mr. XYZ who is saved without the baptism of water.So it means outside the Church there is salvation'.

But there can be no such case.

So when there was no known salvation outside the Church, the Holy Office 1949 inferred that BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions.

Objectively there were no known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, since if someone was saved as such he would be in Heaven and known only to God.

Pius XII and Pope John XXIII instead of correcting the error let it pass. For 19 years they did not lift the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.They maintained it right through Vatican Council II.

So when there are no known cases of BOD,BOB and I.I in our reality we have Vatican Council II mentioning them as if they exist.So LG 14( catechumen who desires baptism) and LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) are generally interpreted as being exceptions to the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

This is also mentioned officially in the International Theological Commission's paper Christianity and the World Religions. Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney and praised Pope Pius XII and they cited 

LG 16 and GS 22 as exceptions  to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

This is how even today liberals and traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II and EENS.

But the real issue, the shocker for every one is not this.It is  what if we just accept LG 16,LG 14, GS 22 as referring to hypothetical cases only ? And they really are only hypothetical cases.

You try it and see.

Ask yourself if  BOD, BOB and I.I and Vatican Council II's LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,NA 2 etc can only be examples of hypothetical and physically invisible cases? 

Then can there be exceptions in 2018 to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church ? Could there have been any known exception in 1965? In 1949 ?

There are no exceptions.

Then it is realised that with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical Vatican Council II is in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors.We are back to an ecumenism of return. Since there is nothing in the Council to contradict the past ecclesiology.

So with hypothetical cases of BOD, the conclusion is a  traditional interpretation of the Council.I call this interpretation Feeneyism.

So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but how you interpret it,with Cushingism or Feeneyism,with the false premise or without it.

-Lionel Andrades