Comment on Gloria TV
No.Vatican Council II can only be interpreted in one rational and traditional way. Just one.
I call this way Feeneyite. You can call it by any other name.
It is different from Vatican Council II Cushingite. Again you can call VC II Cushingite by any other name. But it is a specific interpretation and it is irrational and non traditional.This is the VC 2 which 'can be interpreted in a thousand different ways'.
Chris Ferrara innocently interprets V2 with Cushngism and then rejects the non traditional conclusion.His arguments are rational but he does not know that his premise is false.
Try it out for yourself. Be clear in your mind that invisible people are not visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Hypothetical cases cannot be known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2017 for salvation.
Now ask your self where does V2 contradict EENS( Feeneyite)? Where does V2 contradict EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century?
Is it LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc?
Are these references to visible cases in the past or in 2017?
And if they aren't then where are the exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors in V2?
Did we have it wrong all this time? Every one of us?