If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity.
If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.Yes we've finally found the missing link.What causes the hermeneutic of rupture ? When has Vatican Council II a hermeneutic of continuity?
The whole Church rejects Feeneyism and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
Feeneyism for me is not accepting any exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since there are no physically known exceptions in the present times.There cannot be any objective exception for us human beings, past or present.
Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to EENS in Feeneyism.
So a Feeneyite for me would read the text of Vatican Council II and not confuse LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 as being objectively visible in 2016. So they would not be relevant, or an exception, to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston or the 16th century missionaries.
Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the rest of Tradition.
Feeneyism would accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supports Fr. Leonard Feeney and reject the second part which contradicts the first part.
Feeneyism is the missing link.
Feeneyite your interpretation of Vatican Council II and get back to the old ecclesiology.The Council is pro-Tradition. The teachings of the Catholic Church on salavtion are the same before and after Vatican Council II.
There can only be an ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II. Since UR 3 etc are hypothetical and so do not contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
All non Catholics with no exception need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation, to avoid Hell,since there are no known exceptions outside the Church. There cannot be an Anonymous Christian since there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS ; there are no known cases of someone being saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church to contradict the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology.
So if we attend the Novus Ordo Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is still the same.The new theology has been eliminated since it was based on there being known salvation outside the Church.Ratzinger-Rahner move over.
With Feeneyism we have a rational way to interpret Vatican Council II.No more gymnastics. No more assuming there are visible people on earth who have died with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water and they are relevant to the dogma on salvation.There are none.
This puts the liberals on the defensive. Once Catholics know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism there is now an alternative for them.One which they may not like.Also now the liberals have no citations from Vatican Council II to support their 'progressivist' interpretation.We now know that LG 16 is always, always hypothetical.It is always only a possibility and never a known reality.So the liberals cannot any more cite LG 16 as an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Wikipedia would have to correct the on line error.
This means the SSPX and the traditionalists are in a smiling position.Canonically Vatican Council II should no more be a hurdle.The whole game plan has changed. The doctrinal scenario has changed.Vatican Council II is traditional and right up their tree.It is Ecclesia Dei and the CDF who need to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition,and they'll have to do it with Feeneyism.
Times have changed.