Father Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari were also unknowingly following the new theology

Father Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari were  also following the new theology of ecclesiastical Masonry and they were doing this unknowingly.

They assumed unknown people saved with the baptism of desire were known people saved outside the Church and so in principle, in precept at least, for them these were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

So since for them hypothetical cases were non hypothetical, in their interpretation of EENS, they applied this wrong reasoning to Vatican Council II.LG 16 became a rupture with EENS and they wrongly blamed Vatican Council II.

Of course their conclusion was non traditional and heretical and so they rejected Vatican Council II. They did not know that the fault lay with their inference.

Then they also knew that there was something missing in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents of Pope John Paul II.Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).They could not however put their finger on exactly what was the cause of the problem.These documents obviously did not have the clear teaching of the past on outside the Church there is no salvation.

They were not aware, they did not know,  that Cardinal Ratzinger was using the same new theology, Cushingite theology as them. It was based on the false premise used by the traditionalists in general.

I  sent them e-mails many times.They could not understand what I was saying.Or they probably did not want to make the transition and announce that they had it wrong all these years.
They could probably brush it off, like the SSPX priests, as being "Feeneyism".For the SSPX priests the St. Benedict Centers were wrong  in not accepting BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

Fr.Gruner and John Vennari could not make the invisible-visible distinction, they could not differentiate between known and unknown cases of the baptism of desire.So when they would read magisterial documents they mixed up references to what is invisible as being visible.

Fr. Gruner would affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS when referring to the Church Councils but he would also consider the baptism of desire  as being relevant to EENS.In other words, there were known and visible cases, for them to be exceptions.The baptism of desire was not known only to God.

So Mystici Corporis  and the Catechism of Pope Pius X had to be an exception to Feeneyite EENS  for them- and they were confused.

Their helplessness was seen openly in their criticism of the CDF documents issued by Cardinal Ratzinger. Christopher Ferrara  also did not know the exact cause of the problem. They were aware,though,  of the problem.-Lionel Andrades