Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) in harmony with EENS( Feeneyite)

Thanks for the post.What does he mean when he says that Fr. Feeney and the dogma EENS are in harmony with Vatican II?

Am I missing something here?

Lionel: The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to invisible and hypothetical cases. So they never ever were exceptions to the dogma EENS. This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the liberal theologians repeated it in Vatican Council II.

When we are aware that hypothetical cases(BOD, BOB and I.I) cannot be objective exceptions to EENS for us human beings; we cannot see or meet people saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I then it means that LG 16 is not an exception to EENS.Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopdia, for example made a mistake. Similarly AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) also refers to a hypothetical case. So the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales has made a mistake when it assumes 'seeds of the Word' is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.Similarly another hypothetical case is UR 3.  Bishop Fellay  made a mistake in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors,when he assumed that UR 3 was relevant to EENS and also an exception and so he criticizes Vatican Council II. Similarly GS 22 is also a hypothetical case for us. So Cardinal Ratzinger and the then Fr,Luiz Ladaria s.j( now the cardinal- secretary of the CDF) were wrong to assume that GS 22 and LG 16 were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and were examples of salvation outside the Church(Christianity and the World Religions, ITC). Cardinal Ladaria mistook a possibility as being a known exception to EENS.

So when we avoid the invisible-visible mistake which all the above mentioned people have made we find that Vatican Council II does not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.-Lionel Andrades