I have affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,845,846), Nicene Creed ( I believe in one (known) baptism for the forgiveness of sins( and not three), the Athanasius Creed ( outside the Church there is no salvation), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supports Feeneyite EENS.I am not a sedevacantist nor a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. I am a Catholic.
I interpret all these documents and Church teachings with Feeneyism while the Vatican Curia/CDF/Ecclesia does it with Cushngism.
You could ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or with Feeneyism and if Cushingism can be replaced with Feeneyism, by all.
John Allen at Crux could ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei if I have permission to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( there are no visible exceptions to EENS) and if you also could do the same.
Ask Edward Pentin if Church documents and teachings- Nicene Creed, dogma e xtra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS),Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism or Cushingism and one of them is irrational .
Once the problem has been identified it can be solved.
They simply have to interpret these magisterial teachings and documents with traditional Feeneyism.This means they have to avoid the New Theology which has come in a direct way from the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
An objective mistake was made in the Letter when it assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible in the present times.The same error was repeated in Vatican Council II and so there are superficial passages ( LG 14,LG 16 etc) which create ambiguity.
The same error and ambiguity is also there in Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio which are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.There are Feeneyite passages in them but over all the theology is Cushingite.
The SSPX needs to be aware of this and correct their doctrinal position on Vatican Council II.They need to admit that Vatican Council II Cushingite is a rupture with Tradition but Vatican Council II Feeneyite is in line with the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
So when Pope Benedict XVI a few months back said that EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century this was based on Cushingite theology, the new theology which he and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J advocated.
Without this theology, EENS is once again today (2016) as it was for the Jesuit missionaries in the Middle Ages.
The SSPX must ask Pope Benedict XVI to come back to the Faith.Rome must come back to the Faith as Archbishop Lefebvre wanted.They can do this by interpreting Vatican Council II and other magisterial teachings with rational Feeneyism.
Ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism( as done by the Vatican Curia) or with Feeneyism( as I interpret the Council) and if Cushingism can be replaced with Feeneyism, by all.