Dave Armstrong is a liberal on the issue of salvation.He rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the old ecclesiology associated with the Traditinal Latin Mass. Mark Shea is the same.They know their position is irrational but they want to remain politically correct with the Jewish Left.They do not want to be considered anti-Semitic so they adjust Church doctrine to serve their financial interests.They earn a living writing on the Catholic Church.
Dave Armstrong rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since for him there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation. For him the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to cases known in the present times, who have been saved/ going to be saved, without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Since there are known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation, he and Mark Shea, assume LG 16 (saved in invincible ignorance), refer to objective cases in 2015-2016. So LG 16 and Vatican Council II is a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. So there is NO tension with the Jewish Left.This is also Patheos' position on Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS.Expedient. Convenient. Selfish.
They will not comment or support me, when I say I interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma without known exceptions. I use Feeneyism, and not their Cushingism as a theology.
They do not want to discuss this. Since it would be frightening for them to affirm an anti-Semitic version of Vatican Council II, even if it is rational, traditional and non heretical.-Lionel Andrades