Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise is dogmatic and not just pastoral.

 

Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise is dogmatic and not just pastoral. Since hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology.While Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 interpreted rationally supports the strict interpretation of EENS.

 LG 14 (the baptism of desire) and LG 16 (invincible ignorance) are not objective in our reality. They do not contradict EENS according to the missionaries in the 16^th century who did not project exceptions for EENS. Since the Jesuits in the Middle Ages did not use the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB). They did not claim that BOD, BOB and I.I, without the baptism of water, were physically known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is the rational approach.BOD, BOB and I.I are not known in particular cases. So when St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anthony Mary Claret and popes refer to the BOD,I.I and BOB, it is always to hypothetical cases. If we re-interpret these saints and popes as projecting BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions for Feeneyite EENS then we are assuming that these are objective cases, and so we are assuming that these are objective cases  and so there are practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocenterism of the Catholic Church.Our premise would be wrong.So our conclusion would also be wrong. It would be said that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.

But when BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally they do not contradict EENS, while Ad Gentes 7 supports EENS and is placed in the Catechism( 846) under the title outside the Church there is no salvation.  -Lionel Andrades