Franciscans of the Immaculate (FFI) and the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) be aware. Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational premise. With this false inference he intepreted magisterial documents.So during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II he rejected traditional teachings in a subtle way. Dominus Iesus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Redemptoris Missio have all been water downed. Cardinal Ratzinger assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known and visible to us in real life. So he then assumed there were explicit exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Feeneyite version was rejected as heresy. Also rejected was Tradition according to the popes and saints before 1949. For Cardinal Ratzinger, and then Pope Benedict XVI, some persons now in Heaven were visible exceptions on earth.They were exceptions to the baptism of water being necessary for all.Traditional teaching on salvation was rejected. It is with this 'empirical observation', I-can-see-the-dead-saved-without-the-baptism-of-water, that he screened Dominus Iesus etc.
For him Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8,Nostra Aetate 2, Unitatis Redintigratio 3 etc refer to objective exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. So he could not simply say in Dominus Iesus that all need to enter the Church formally and defacto there are no exceptions.
He could not say it. Since for him LG 16 ( saved with invincible ignorance) refers to known salvation outside the Church ( i.e without faith and baptism).Pope Pius XII was correct and Fr.Feeney and the previous popes were wrong for him.
The text of Vatican Council II does not refer to salvation in invincible ignorance as being explicit for us . It does not say that we personally know any one saved as such. Neither does it state that those who are saved as such will not have received the baptism of water before going to Heaven.However he infers all this.
Cardinal Ratzinger assumed (1) that these cases were personally known to us( for them to be exceptions). (2) They refer to persons saved without the baptism of water and who did not need to formally enter the Catholic Church.Where does any magisterial document before 1949 make this claim? There is no precedent.Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent only refer to implicit desire/ baptism of desire. It is not said that these cases are 1) visible to us in real life or 2) are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
Instead we have been a new new doctrine.It is irrational. It is an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was not corrected by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF),Vatican.Instead the CDF allowed the oversight to condition Dominis Iesus.Cardinal Ratzinger was a Cushingite.Irrational Cushingism can be detected all over magisterial documents he approved.
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger approved Dominus Iesus in 2000 he assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.For Pope Benedict XVI there was known salvation outside the Church. Those saved with the baptism of desire etc were assumed to be known.They were visible for him. Upon this irrationality the new theology is founded.
20.For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.
The dogma says all need to formally enter the Church for salvation and so does Vatican Council II (AG 7). Dominus Iesus says those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church are saved. Who are they? Do we know any such person over the last 100 years saved, who was not a formal member of the Church? Do we know any one who will be saved as such in future?
How can hypothetical cases, be exceptions to the dogma approved by three Church Councils? The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by a cardinal ( Marchetti-Selvaggini), in which he has made an objective mistake, is sufficient to do away with the dogma and the traditional interpretation?
21.With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself...
Who are these mysterious people saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith? They are not known to us in 2014. They would have to be known to be exceptions to the tradional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So they are irrelevant to the dogma Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to Cantate Dominio which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma says all heretics ( Protestants) and schismatics ( Orthodox Christians) need to convert into the Catholic Church formally to avoid the fires of Hell.The Jews need to do the same said this Church Council.
Without the irrational inference Vatican Council II is traditional and in line with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. With the inference of the dead being visible Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past.
So if the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the SSPX avoid the irrational inference, which assumes salvation in Heaven, in some cases, are physically visible to us on earth, then Vatican Council II can be accepted as being traditional on other religions and Christian communities.Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would become ideological for Pope Francis and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.More important, they would have no rational basis, no citation in the Council, to support their liberal and heretical position.-Lionel Andrades