Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich organised a meeting on Vatican Council II in Rome. The participants interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise. So there was a rupture with the old ecumenism of return and EENS

Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich organised a meeting on Vatican Council II in Rome. The participants interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise.1 So there was a rupture with the old ecumenism of return and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

So with the false premise the speakers  promoted  mortal sins of faith.They were putting aside magisterial documents.2

The participants usually say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) when they really should be saying that they are not exceptions.3

 Vatican Council II when interpreted without the false premise is Traditional. It supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the past exclusivist ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.

Vatican Council II when interpreted without the invisible-visible, objective-subjective confusion is traditional. It supports the Athanasius Creed on outside the Church there is no salvation.For example, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to hypothetical cases.They are not objective exceptions in 1965-2019 to the ecumenism of return, the old exclusivist ecclesiology and EENS. So there is no rational theological  basis for the New Ecumenism in Vatican Council II.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings and none mentioned in Vatican Council II, there is no theological basis also for the New Ecclesiology and New Theology.

There is no room for the 'spirit of Vatican Council II' when the ecclesiology of the Church is not changed with Vatican Council II.

The conference was held with the liberal reading of the Council i.e mixing up what is invisible as being visible. 

The liberal theologians in Germany still use the false premise.They eliminated the past ecclesiology with a false premise. So the Church today for them is Christological only and not ecclesiocentric.This  is a rupture with the past.-Lionel Andrades

1

Their false premise is:-

1. Invisible people are visible.

2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.

3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.

4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.

5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.

6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).

7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking  who are saved outside the Church.

8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.

9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.

10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.

2
 So with the false premise there are objective exceptions to EENS, Athanasius Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed etc:-

1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.

2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred  to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.

3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now  unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.

6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.

7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration  etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.
8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.

3

People usually say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) when they really should be saying that they are not exceptions.

People have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as exceptions.

They have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as objective people, known and visible. But there are no such cases.

The conditioning has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). The liberal theologians assumed the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) were exceptions to EENS when they really should have said that they are not exceptions to EENS.

People have been conditioned to see BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions. 

They have been conditioned to see BOD,BOB and I.I as objective people, known and visible, but there are no such cases.