Chris Ferrara, Mons.Clifford Joseph Fenton, Fr. John Hardon, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Michael Davis, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Attila Guimares, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others did not know about it.

It was there before their eyes.But like all of us they did not see it. Chris Ferrara, Mons.Clifford Joseph Fenton, Fr. John Hardon, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Michael Davis, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Attila Guimares, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others did not know about it.

They did not know that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) could be interpreted as referring to known or unknown people in the present times.

It is the same with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA, 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II. They can refer to known or unknown people saved outside the Church.

The moment they say that  BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) they infer that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known people saved outside the Church. They would have to be   visible to be exceptions.

Similarly when they interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology, they imply that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to personally known people saved outside the Church.

So they wrote their books using the irrational premise  i.e invisible non Catholics were visible to them.So there was a new theology.It said outside the Church there is salvation.It's basis was invisible people are visible. It's foundational reasoning was - unknown people are known in the present times.

I interpret EENS and Vatican Council II without this irrationality.So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with EENS for me.EENS is not a rupture with EENS as it was known in the 16th century.

How can there be two interpretations of  EENS ? One of them has to be wrong.So Pope Benedict was wrong in March 2016 when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century and that there was a development with Vatican Council II ( with the irrational premise, of course).

So the interpretation of Vatican Council II on March 1,2018 by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuit Deo Press Conference is obsolete.LG 8 is not an exception to the old teaching on the Catholic Church having the exclusiveness in salvation.

Cardinal Ladaria answered the AP correspondents question using the irrational premise. He assumed LG 8 refers to known people savedo outside the Church. There is no such person.

This is also the mistake of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre  and the present sedevcanatist bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas.-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 9, 2018

Abp.Lefebvre's writings now obsolete. He did not know about Vatican Council II and the baptism of desire without the false premise (Graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/abplefebvres-writings-now-obsolete-he.html

AUGUST 8, 2018

Would the CDF and the traditionalists consider the interpretation of Vatican Council II with visible and known BOD, BOB and I.I as being irrational and non traditional? (Graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/would-cdf-and-traditionalists-consider.html