This would be bad news for Michael Sean Winters since he only knows the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which every Catholic who discerns, must reject.

Lots of sound and fury, to be sure, but does it signify anything? It signifies only that there are some people in the church who have never accepted Vatican II, who approved of St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI only insofar as they seemed to be reining in the reforms of that council, and who now, faced with a pope who is determined to unleash, not to rein in, the reforms that council called for, have been smoked out of their pre-Vatican-II lairs.- Michael Sean Winters, Hostility to Vatican II runs deep with Pope Francis' critics

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/hostility-vatican-ii-runs-deep-pope-francis-critics

There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and most people know only the false one.There is Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and a Council interpreted without it i.e Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).

So one interpretation is irrational and it has to be rejected. 

Then there is a Vatican Council II which is a rupture with the old exclusivist ecclesiology  which could only affirm an ecumenism of return.This is the common Vatican Council II with the new ecumenism,based on known salvation outside the Church.

Common sense tells us that there can be no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). We cannot meet someone saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.

So the interpretation which falsely says that there is known salvation outside the Church is objectively false. This is the same interpretation which is irrational and uses a false premise.

Since the false premise is used and there is a rupture with Tradition, there is a false conclusion. This conclusion is different from the conclusion of Vatican Council II which does not use the false premise, is not irrational and does not assume that there are known cases of people saved outside the Church.

So there are two distinct interpretations of Vatican Council II one is irrational, non traditional and its conclusion is heretical, it is a rupture with the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and traditionally.

Without the irrational premise the pre-and post Vatican Coucil II ecclesiology is the same.So we still have an ecumenism of return and this is the Conciliar teaching.

We still have outside the Church there is no known salvation and this is the Conciliar teaching.

We still have an ecclesiology in Vatican Council II which is in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and this is a Vatican Council II moment. It is a post Vatican Council II ecclesiology.

This would be bad news for Michael Sean Winters.Since he only knows the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which every Catholic who discerns, should reject.Theologically there is no rational philosophy to support it.Invisible people cannot be considered visible.
There is no choice. It has to be rejected.

I attend the Novus Ordo Mass generally and I can affirm the old ecclesiology along with Vatican Council II (without the irrational premise), Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).So there is no pre Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology, for me, as it is there for Michael Sean Winters.
Meanwhile as a good Catholic, who follows his conscience I would have to continue, like the SSPX, to reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and hope Rome will come back to the Faith with Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)

-Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 15, 2018

Vatican-cardinals need to be asked how can a lay man in Rome affirm EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century and Pope Benedict could not do so in March 2016 ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/vatican-cardinals-need-to-be-asked-how.html