It depends upon how Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneidert interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949,since this will determine how they interpret Vatican Council II.If they would believe that Cardinal Richard Cushing and not Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy in 1949 then the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
If Cardinal Cushing was wrong to assume there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then Vatican Council II is traditional and has the old ecclesiology.Since there would no be exceptons mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
Presently they both reject Feeneyism which says, according to me, that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.For them there are exceptions!
For the two of them the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known people saved without the baptism of water.So LG 16 etc become objective and known exceptions to the dogma EENS, even though there are no such cases on earth.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that imaginary cases of the baptism of desire etc were not imaginary. This same error in reasoning is made by Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athansius Schneider.
They would also be saying that all Muslims and Jews, besides other non Catholics, are on the way to Hell since they are not incorporated as members into the Church. It would mean that all Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to formally enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441)-Lionel Andrades