However this is not a permanent error. If we assume LG 16 refers to hypothetical cases and not real people known in 2017, then LG 16 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all need to be members of the Church for salvation.
So if Bishop Schneider and the traditionalists accept LG 16 as referring to only a theoretical case, then Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, LG 14, AG 11, AG 14, GS 22 are all hypothetical cases.They are not visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.
I call this interpretation, when LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases, as Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
For Bishop Schneider LG 16 refers to exceptions to the dogma EENS. So for LG 16 to be an exception, he means that LG 16 refers to a known case.Someone personally known who is saved outside Church. If it was not a visible and known case it could not be an exception.This is his inference. I call this interpretation, Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is the Arian heresy in the Catholic Church today.