St.Thomas Aquinas held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was the same as the Church Councils. It did not mention any known exceptions.
St.Thomas also mentioned the man in the forest in invincible ignorance to whom God would send a preacher and he could be saved. The man in the forest who is saved today in invincible ignorance would be known only to God. We do not and cannot know who is saved as such in 2014. The person saved in invincible ignorance is not a visible, known exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
So how would the New St.Thomas Aquinas Institute interpret Vatican Council II ? Would LG 16( invincible ignorance) be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
If you say that LG 16 is not a known exception to the dogmatic teaching then this would be rational.
Then the question arises ,'Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake in assuming that being saved in invincible ignorance was a known exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?'. If there are no visible cases there are no exceptions? Hypothetical cases are possibilities but they are not exceptions? If they do not exist in our reality they cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water or salvation.
Rational Interpretation of Vatican Council II : hope for the Franciscans of the Immaculatehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/rational-interpretation-of-vatican.html#links
July 9, 2014