Scott Hahn and Ralph Martin's New Evangelisation is 'new' because like the Vatican they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So there are artificial exceptions created

Scott Hahn and Ralph Martin's New Evangelisation is 'new' because like the Vatican they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So there are artificial exceptions created to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old concept of Mission.

The New Evangelisation of Cardinal Tagle is new since he is obligated to use the false premise( visible cases of LG 8, LG 16 etc).In this way there is an approved rupture with traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, with no known exceptions.

Traditional evangelisation or mission was not a rupture with Tradition since the false premise was not used over the centuries.

Now LG 8, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II, are intepreted with the false premise and so this creates a break with traditional- mission concepts.

In the past all needed to be Catholic for salvation and not only those who knew about Jesus and the Church.However in Vatican Council II(LG 14), invincible ignorance ( Letter of the Holy Office 1949) is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.So it is said that only those who know about Jesus and the Church need to enter the Church to avoid Hell.

For the Jesuits in the 16th century all needed to enter the Church for salvation and not only those who know about Jesus and the Church.Jesus did not mention any exceptions to John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Jesus did not mention any exceptions to the Great Commission.

The theologians have created these exceptions by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then projecting this illusion as an exception to Tradition.Cardinal Ratzinger approved this error.

LG 14 is a mistake in Vatican Council II but the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS.Since we do not know of any exception in real life.We cannot see or meet someone who will be saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance.

Similarly it was an error of the Council Fathers to mention a invincible ignorance (AG 7) with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).They could have  assumed that invincible ignorance was an exception to EENS. This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=1HTTTzNSHHo&feature=emb_title