Dissenters will use 'the ambiguities' but why do the SSPX and orthodox Catholics have to assume there are ambiguities

absconde_me says

The damage and hurt comes from the intentional ambiguities built into its constitutions.

Lionel:
It is understandable that the liberals and dissenters will use 'the ambiguities' but why does the SSPX and orthodox Catholics have to assume there are ambiguities.

For example Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those who are saved in invincible ignorance.

1.This is ambigous when it is assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2.It is not ambigous when it is assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Why does the SSPX, the Franciscan Friars of the Immmaculate etc have to choose N.1?

If LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are interpreted rationally, as being invisible for us, there is no ambiguity in Vatican Council II.

 

absconde_me says :

My friend in the SSPX discloses his sense that "error has no rights." I believe this is the ultimate SSPX escape clause re: Vatican II. The SSPX will always hold that V II is fatally flawed because of the recognition that men ought to have freedom of religion.

Lionel:
Vatican Council II (Dignitatis Humanae) refers to the freedom of religion in a state with a secular Constituion.
The SSPX formally and legally recognizes that in secular states non Catholics have the right to practise their religion.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2996/francis_and_traditionalist_catholics.aspx