Vatican Council II is no more an excuse to reject exclusive salvation in the Church

Whenever I would say outside the Church there is no salvation I was corrected.I would be told that Vatican Council II changed that teaching.Now we know that this was wrong.Vatican Council II is no more an excuse. It cannot be used as an excuse any more. We know that Vatican Council II supports exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Hypothetical cases in Lumen Gentium ( LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 ) are not literal examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2019. There are no literal cases.Unknown cases of Christians mentioned in Unitatis Redintigratio are not known exceptions to an ecumenism of return.Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. Nostra Aetate does not mention objective people saved outside the Church.So Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.All.

The Catholic Church still teaches that it has exclusive salvation.The traditional teaching on exclusive salvation is now based upon Ad Gentes 7.There are no known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which is based upon John 3:5,Mark 16:16, Matt.7:13, John 3:16-18 etc.No exceptions are mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.

Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Bea,Murray and Cushing were present at the Council. So what? Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.It supports Feeneyite EENS and the past ecclesiology.Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was correct. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual  mistake.So it cannot be magisterial.The Holy Spirit cannot make a mistake.

The popes over the centuries affirmed the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For them the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were only hypothetical cases. So they were not exceptions to EENS for them.

The liberal theologians made a mistake in 1949. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston,was wrong.Since hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,were non hypothetical for them.Invisible people were visible. The Archdiocese of Boston was confused too.

So Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center were correct and the Holy Office ( CDF) and Pope Pius XII were wrong.-Lionel Andrades