I am interpreting Magisterial Documents rationally, with the Rational Premise (LG 16 refers to invisible cases only) so there is no possible liberalism. There is no development of doctrine since there are no exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc

 

I interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) rationally. The second part does not contradict the first part which supports traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.

How can unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved with invincible ignorance be known exceptions of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith interprets the LOHO irrationally. The second part contradicts the first part; the introductory part. Unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are practical and known exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I am interpreting Magisterial Documents rationally, with the Rational Premise (LG 16 refers to invisible cases only) so there is no possible liberalism. There is no development of doctrine since there are no exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc.-Lionel Andrades