In principle we agree that dogmas are important and they do not change, they do not develop.We also agree that the hermeneutic of Vatican Council II, and other magisterial documents must have a continuity with the past dogmas.
Theoretically the same view would also be expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger and the SSPX bishops.
But pastorally, in general, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition,It is a break with the old ecclesiology and the dogma extra eccclesiam nulla salus as it was known over the centuries.So practically, in 2016 we have exceptions to the way the dogma EENS was known, for example, to the 16th missionaries.
Pope Benedict XVI a few months back confirmed that EENS is not more like it was for the 16th century missionaries.It has developed he said, with Vatican Council II.
So in reality, in real life, pastorally, he is saying categorically in the interview in Avvenire that the dogma EENS has changed.Then he also approved the development in Vatican Council II, which creates a break with EENS. He accepts Vatican Council II as such.
So pastorally EENS has changed for Pope Benedict and there are practical exceptions, to EENS .
Now we come to th the issue I have raised.
For me EENS has not changed and there are no practical exceptions in Vatican Council II to this dogma as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
I consider hypotyhetical cases as being only hypothetical. So there are no practical exceptions to EENS in 2016.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops consider the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being exceptions to EENS. So LG 16 would refer to an explicit case in 2016 for it to be an exception to EENS.
So our premises and conclusions are different.
With my premise ( no known cases of the baptism of desire etc in 2016) and conclusion( Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS and the Syllabus of Errors) Vatican Council II affirms the old ecclesiology.
So we have two conclusions and two interpretations.One has to be correct and the other wrong.
Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?