The ecclesiastics would agree that this is all heresy. They are not Feeneyites.There is no denial from them.

 Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) has exceptions for Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and Archbishop Morandi and Di Noia.So the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are visible for them to be exceptions.Hypothetical and theoretical cases of the BOD and I.I would be objective exceptions to EENS. These ecclesiastics of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) are Cushingites and not Feeneyites.

So the Athanasius Creed has exceptions!It says all need Catholic faith for salvation and the CDF says ,'No not all. There are exceptions'.This would be heresy in the 16th century.Heresy with the use of a false premise.

In the Nicene Creed we pray, 'One baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.Now it is three known baptisms, blood, ignorance and desire.They all exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This is what makes them exceptions to EENS.So this is innovation.It is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed.

The Apostles Creed indicates the Holy Spirit guides the Church to say outside the Church there is known salvation. When all these centuries the Holy Spirit taught the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation.This is a big change in theology.

For the CDF, in Vatican Council II, LG 16 is a rupture with EENS. For me there is no rupture. So this is a peculiar interpretation of the Council by the CDF. They use the false premise to interpret LG 16 and then reject EENS.This would be a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II for me.

With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict itself. Invincible ignorance mentioned in the Catechism would contradict Feeneyite 24Q and 27 Q.Cardinal Ladaria and the Archbishops use a false premise to interpret invincible ignorance.

The ecclesiastics would agree that this is all heresy. They are not Feeneyites.There has been no denial. -Lionel Andrades