Sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II(Cushingite), with the for and against EENS method of reading the text will become obsolete.Traditionalists and liberals too will have to switch to for and neutral to EENS method.

Remember if you read the text of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) with the for and neutral to EENS method instead of the for and against EENS method there are two different conclusions. With the for and against EENS  method, the result, I call Cushingism and with the for and neutral to EENS method the conclusion I call Feeneyism.

So there is a Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and a Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).Vatican Council II (C) is a rupture with EENS and Tradition and Vatican Council II(F) is in harmony.

For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for the sedevacantists, traditionalists and liberals, the Council is Cushingite.

It is the same Council but for them it is a rupture with Tradition and for me it is not.

The for and against EENS method of reading Vatican Council II comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were non hypothetical and actually known people saved outside the Church, without the baptism  of water and Catholic faith.So BOD, BOB and I.I were considered exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

BOD,BOB and I.I were seen as physically visible people. They were considered personally known people.In this way they were projected as exceptions to the EENS.

So the inference was wrong.

Since there are no such known people.

So based on this false inference we use the for and against  EENS method when reading Vatican Council II.We infer that there are known cases of BOD and I.I and so the passage becomes Cushingite. Then we conclude that the passage and Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.

At Vatican Council II they used the principle of hypothetical cases being known exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times, to name other hypothetical cases , as if they could also be exceptions to EENS.So the reader must be aware of this when reading the Council-text.

So from BOD, BOB and I.I they thought out other possibilities, like ' seeds of the Word'(AG 11), 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3),'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions which could be salvific(LG 8), the true Church subsisting outside its visible boundaries (LG 8),people of good will being saved (GS 22) etc.

These are all hypothetical cases and are not exceptions to the norm for salvation, which is faith and baptism in the Catholic Church; membership in the Catholic Church.

So the for and against EENS method of reading Vatican Council II is based on an irrationality.It is an innovative and false way of reading the Council-text.

We can switch to the for and neutral to EENS method and so the passages which would be Cushingite become Feeneyite and are no more interpreted as a rupture with Tradition.

So over time there will not be Catholics reading Vatican Council II or the Catechisms with the for and against EENS method. Vatican Council II will be read in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

Sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II(Cushingite), with the for and against EENS method of reading the text , will become obsolete.Traditionalists and liberals too will have to switch to the for and neutral to EENS method.-Lionel Andrades