Obligated to the Masons and the Left Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morani did not want to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. They did not truthfully interpret the Council without hypothetical cases being assumed to be objective people in the present times

See the timing at 28:53 on this video. Cardinal Ladaria in answer to a question cites LG 8 as an exception to EENS.This is an objective error and it comes from the mistake the Church made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.

(17: 11) Cardinal Ladaria tells Sandro Magister(Settimo Cielo) that a fundamental point of Dominus Iesus was the unicity of salvation in Jesus Christ.There is no other Saviour he says citing the Bible.So he says that here the Christian faith( not Catholic!) is very clear.

The second part of Dominus Iesus he said is Ecclesiology which deals with ecumenism etc.The document Dominus Iesus according to him, did not want to enter into that.The  scope of Dominus Iesus for him it was only Christological.

So he confirms once again that ecclesiology has been changed when in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was assumed that unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were known and visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), as it was known for example, to the missionaries in the 16th century.

Since the exclusivist ecclesiology of the popes over the centuries had been put aside with the false premise ( invisible non Catholics are visible examples of salvation outside the Church) all that is left is Christology without the necessity of being a member of the Catholic Church only, for Saviour.So doctrine and dogma on salvation has been set aside here.

Sandro Magister had initially asked about Dominus Iesus. He said that there were many questions raised after it was issued and he was hoping Placuit Deo would answer them.

Bishop Morani then added that this is the traditional teaching of the popes. 
This is false. Patently false.

The Jesuit in the Middle Ages, for example, held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS which has been rejected today. This was confirmed in public by Pope Benedict in March 2016 (Avvenire).

The popes did not separate salvation in Jesus from being a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.The separation was made by the liberal theologians in the Boston Case and then at Vatican Council II.They had the support of a lobby.

However inspite of this innovation Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and the Church returns to the past ecclesiology and there is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors which Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberal theologians rejected.

But out of obligations to the Masons and the rest of the Left in March 2016, Pope Benedict did not want to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. Neither did Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morani want to speak the truth and interpret the Council, without hypothetical cases being assumed to be objective people.The 'magisterium' once again chose a rupture instead of a continuity with Tradition.

This is an objective mistake. This is deception.So it cannot be magisterial. Since the Holy Spirit cannot teach error and make a mistake. This is personal bad theology, human error.
-Lionel Andrades