Today morning at Mass in Italian the priest said that only those who choose to separate themselves from God will go to Hell and God has come to save all people, he wants all people in general to be saved.So he was optimistic like other liberals that most people would be saved.
Jesus died for all people but to receive this salvation all need to accept him as the Saviour in the Catholic Church(Dominus Iesus 20) and most people reject Jesus.
So all who know about Jesus and the necessity of the Church for salvation and still do not enter will not be saved(LG 14) this is true - but also those in general who do not know about Jesus and the Church and die with Original Sin on their soul will not be saved.
There are millions of people who do not know Jesus and the Catholic Church and they will also be lost.There are also millions of people in other religions who will also be lost.If anyone in invincible ignorance is to be saved it would be known only to God.In general the millions of people in the jungles of Africa and the deserts of Asia are all lost since they will die outside the Church.All need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).So even though Jesus died for all people, the majority of people will choose not to accept him as the Saviour.
This was how the Church Fathers and the missionaries in the 16th century understood salvation.With the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) liberal theologians at Vatican Council Ii changed this understanding of salvation.But the error is not fixed and permanent.They made the change with an irrationality.They assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance referred to known people (and not speculative cases) saved outside the Church, the theologians believed not everyone needs to enter the Church but only those who know about it, who were not in invincible ignorance.So with them accepting known and visible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance,they assumed there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus). Only with known people saved outside the Church could there be exceptions to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.Invisible and speculative cases could not be exceptions.There had to be concrete people for them to be examples of salvation outside the Church.

So for the liberal theologians like Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, no more did one have to be a Catholic for salvation.
Until today the liberals says God loves all people and all can be saved  and 'the restriction', the 'limitation' is only believing in Christ - even without membership in the Catholic Church.So there still is a condition.
Before the LOHO error, when invisible baptism of desire was considered a visible exception to Feeneyite Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the teaching was that  it was necessary to believe and follow Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church the only Church he founded.
So the priest today morning was saying that for salvation one had to be a Christian and did not say that membership in the Catholic Church was necessary.

By assuming non Catholics saved outside the Church are known examples of salvation outside the Church there is a new theology which is Christological without an 'exclusivist ecclesiocentrism'; without exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

But what if we reason out that there are no known cases of being saved in  2018, in invincible ignorance, baptism of desire and baptism of blood, in the Catholic Church,baptism of blood, baptism of blood and I.I having nothing to do with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus then what?
It means the millions of Christians (Protestants, Pentecostals, Orthodox Christians etc) are Hell-bound at the time of their death, since they are not Catholic.
Also the billions of non Chrisitans (Jews,Muslims, atheists etc) are Hell-bound at the time of death since they do not have faith and baptism as Catholics, which is necessary for salvation(AG 7,LG 14).
So the difference between the liberals and me is - seeing  baptism of desire, baptism of blood and I.I as referring to known or unknown, visible or invisible people saved outside the Church.
When there are visible people saved outside the Church there can be no exclusivist ecclesiocentrism but when there are no known examples of salvation outside the Church we return to the past ecclesiology of the Church, which was exclusivist, every one needs to be a member of the Church with faith and baptism for salvation and there can be no known exceptions for us human beings.
Posibilities and speculative cases are not exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.As a possibility a Christian can be saved outside the Catholic Church and God does not have to restrict Himself to the Sacraments if he does not want to and with Him being God.This is something theoretical for us and would only be real for God.It  would only be a possibility known to God.So it is not a real, concrete exception in our reality, to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.It is not an exception to the exclusivist ecclesiology  taught over the centuries.
So the priest today morning was assuming that there was known salvation outside the Church and so he rejected the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.He then replaced it with a vague Christology, which would make a belief in Jesus as being all that was ncessary for salvation