'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions
Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, cardinals and archbishops have not objected to this passage from Christianity and the World Religions by the International Theological Commission 1997.
There is a factual mistake here.
'the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16...')
It is a possibility of salvation ,true, but it is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. A possibility is not an exception.
If a possibility was an exception then we could physically see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16). This passage above implies that we can see the deceased now saved in Heaven for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead.
Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican approved this passage.
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission
and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.
Again it is being implied that possibilities of salvation known only to God are personally known to us in the present times.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not know any one how is going to be condemned or saved, who 'knew' about the Church or was in invincible ignorance.Possibilities are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. Every one needs to enter the Church for salvation in 2014 and not only those who know. Those who know or do not know will be decided by God.
The same objective error is made in the ITC's The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized'.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
Being saved in invincible ignorance is a possibility it is not a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These cases-saved are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. There is confusion here between what is objective and subjective, visible and invisible, known in realilty or hypotethetical.
The popes and the ITC have assumed hypothetical cases are personally known exceptions. This is factually incorrect.-Lionel Andrades