So what if Vatican Council II was an ecumenical Council, Unitatis Redintigratio(UR 3) does not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine and St Francis Xavier on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. UR 3 refers to a theoretical and speculative case only. Something hoped for.It does not refer to a known Protestant saved outside the Church. There is no personally known case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church. Since a person saved as such would be in Heaven ( without Catholic faith and baptism) and would be known only to God.

So what if Vatican Council II was an ecumenical Council, Unitatis Redintigratio(UR 3) does not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine  and St Francis Xavier on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. UR 3 refers  to a theoretical and speculative case only. Something hoped for.It does not refer to a known Protestant saved outside the Church. There is no personally known case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church. Since a person saved as such would be in Heaven ( without Catholic faith and baptism) and would be known only to God.

So this was a false reasoning in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers were following a false new philosophy and theology from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. But now that the mistake is there- UR e, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc,  are mentioned(when they should not have been so), we interpret them as hypothetical cases- and they cannot be anything else- and know that they do not contradict St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuit missionaries on outside the Church there is no salvation.Invincible ignorance and the  baptism of desire were hypothetical cases in the 16th century too.So they were not exceptions to EENS for St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.EENS today is the same as in the 16th century. Vatican Council II today does not contradict the EENS of the 16th century.

-Lionel Andrades