Fr. Ratzinger messed it up at Vatican Council II. He did know that there was a tell tale mistake that would be uncovered 50 years later which would undo all the bad work at the Council and the false narrative he defended for 50 years.-

How can LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) )-even a school boy  would understand  that they are not exceptions .But this is unknown to Philip Pullella,Michael Sean Winters, Massimo Faggioli, John Allen and the Associated Press corespondents.They do not understand since they do not want to understand and accept it.The writing is on the wall.

They can see the directiion the Church will be going now after Vatican Council II. The error has been identified. Now it can be corrected.

We now know what makes the Council a rupture with Tradition  and we simply avoid it.

Cardinal Bea, John Courtney Murray, Cardinal Cushing and all the big names of the progessivist camp which were there at Vatican Council II , and which the liberal media reminded us about, blew it.They failed. THEY FAILED.We now have undone their work finally.So what if Yves Congar was there at the Council ? The Council is traditional on exclusive salvation, when the false premise  is avoided.

So what if the Jesuit Karl Rahner was there at Vatican Council II ? The Council supports Feeneyite EENS;, the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS, when LG 8 etc are seen as only hypothetical cases.They can only be hypothetical. We have no other choice.

Why should the case of the unknown catechumen who sought the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but died before receiving it and is allegedly and hypothetically saved(LG 14) be an exception to all needing to be Catholic  to avoid Hell? Who is this person? It is un unknown case. An unknown case is an objective exception to EENS?

The person does not exist.Now one saw him in Heaven.He is not there in 2019. Why should he be made relevant to 16th century EENS?

The case of the unknown catechumen will always be the case of the unknown catechumen.

Massimo Faggioli knows this. John Allen knows it.So their position on Vatican Council II is ideological. It is political. It is not magisterial. Since the Magisterium cannot make an objective mistake. Instead it is schismatic and heretical.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and traditional .It can only support an ecumenism of return and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There are no ambigous passages.

Fr. Ratzinger messed it up at Vatican Council II. He did know that there was a tell tale mistake that would be uncovered 50 years later which would undo all the bad work at the Council and the false narrative he defended for 50 years.-Lionel Andrades