I am not saying anything new, in the sense, I am not putting forward a new theology or new theory. I am only pointing out that anyone who interprets LG 8, 14, 15,16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only invisible and hypothetical cases, goes back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology. The Church, so to speak returns to Tradition. This is automatic and immediate.

I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally i.e. LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases only.

So they are not objective exceptions for the ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church; the Church having exclusive salvation. Meanwhile Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation. This was the same message of the Church Councils, which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus ; the Feeneyite version, which did not mention any exceptions.

So for me de facto all non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. I do not separate Jesus from the Catholic Church, His Mystical Body, the Bible tells us.

Hypothetically and with good will I can hope there are exceptions for the dogma EENS, someone saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' or 'with elements of sanctification and truth' found outside the Church, but I could not know of any exceptions. Neither can you know. So there really are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.This is the understanding of everyone, including non Christians.

The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake when it projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. The same mistake was made by Fr. Karl Rahner sj and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger at Vatican Council II and probably ‘the Rhine Group’.

So it is important to note that I am affirming Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) but I am interpreting them rationally i.e. invisible cases are always invisible, Lumen Gentium 16 for example, refers to an invisible person in 1965-2024.

This would be the traditional understanding of the dogma EENS when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally by the Auxiliary Bishops of Rome and the Vicar General. They would be saying the same thing as me. They have an obligation to interpret Magisterial Documents only ethically. 

This would be the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II by my Parish Priest who would then have to affirm the dogma EENS. The Missionaries of Charity priests of Mother Teresa would reach the same conclusion when they interpret LG 8, 14, 1,5 16 etc rationally i.e. these are invisible cases in 2024, they are not visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.

So I am not saying anything new, in the sense, I am not putting forward a new theology or new theory. I am only pointing out that anyone who interprets LG 8, 14, 15,16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc  as being only invisible and hypothetical cases, goes back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology. The Church, so to speak returns to Tradition. This is automatic and immediate.

- Lionel Andrades