I do not use the Leftist-Lefebvrist interpretation of Vatican Council II.When I meet Catholics I would be asking them to accept Vatican Council II as I do.
So when I meet a Catholic I could ask, "Why don't you accept Vatican Council II?"
"I do accept Vatican Council II" he would respond.
"Then why don't you say that Vatican Council II says all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other non Catholics need to formally enter the Church( with faith and baptism) to avoid Hell( for salvation).You do not say this in public.This is the teaching of Vatican Council II."
"Where does Vatican Council II say this" he asks surprised.
"In Ad Gentes 7 for example. Also in Lumen Gentium 14. NA 4 says Catholics are the new people of God."I would reply.
"What does it say ? he asks.
"It says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All."I say.
Others respond:"Vatican Council II also refers to someone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire."
"Yes Vatican Council II refers to a person being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) or a catechumen being saved without the baptism of water(LG 14) but LG 14 and LG 16 does not specifically state that this is without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. One has to infer it. The text does not say it. You have to infer it.I assume it is with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church since this is the dogmatic teaching.
Secondly LG 14 and LG 16 should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II since there are no such cases known in the past or present time. No one could have seen, met or known any such person, who would be in Heaven.
Thirdly it is not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Feeneyite version, since there are no such exceptions in 2016.LG 14 and LG 16 do not refer to explicit cases for them to be exceptions to EENS.
So Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not and cannot know of any exception in the present times to AG 7 and LG 14.
Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Church for salvation, tell this to everyone.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation, there can only be an ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation all political laws must have the teachings of the Catholic Church at its centre.There must be no separation of Church and State.
This has been my approach when I meet liberals and lefebvrists. I tell them that I affirm Vatican Council II and also the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In fact I tell this to everyone.
I attend the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo affirming the old ecclesiology and Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
Most Catholics do not understand the difference between implicit and explicit baptism of desire( LG 14) and visible and invisible being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16).So they do not understand me.
They are conditioned to believe that ' the case of the catechumen' is always explicit. Explicit baptism of desire of the explicit catechumen contradicts Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So they reject the dogma EENS.Or they accept Cushingite EENS.
Or they accept Feeneyite EENS and reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) since LG 16 and LG 14 , for them, refers to explicit cases, objectively known.
The contemporary magisterium, the liberals, the Lefebvrists and the St. Benedict Centers of Fr. Leonard Feeney, interpret LG 16, LG 14 etc as being explicit.This is irrational. It is an objective error.
So when I affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries and also Vatican Council II, they cannot understand me.
For me there can be two options, one rational and the other irrational, one is Feeneyite and the other is Cushingite.
Vatican Council II is Feeneyite when LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases. It is Cushingite when LG 16 etc refer to visible cases.
The Lefebvrist and Leftist interpretation of EENS is Cushingite.For them the baptism of desire( Cushingite,explicit) are objective exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).This is a theological innovation.
For me the baptism of desire ( Feeneyite, implicit for us, invisible for us) cannot be an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).
For Archbishop Lefebvre there was an explicit baptism of desire which was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite). So theologically there was no extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) for Archbishop Lefebvre.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was really always Cushingite for him since there were explicit exceptions in the baptism of desire etc.So he rejected Vatican Council II and could not say that Vatican Council II says all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation.
When I meet Catholics I say that Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation and all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Vatican Council II affirms the old ecclesiology so there can only be an ecumenism of return.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation, all political legislation must have Jesus as known in the Catholic Church, as it's centre. There must not be a separation of Church and State.