A Catholic can interpret Vatican Council in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors or/and he can also reject the Council since it has an objective error, which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.The error the periti made was to assume there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and then they placed 'the exceptions' in the text of the Council.

A Catholic can interpret Vatican Council in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors or/and he can also reject the Council  since it has an objective error, which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.The error the periti  made was to assume there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and then they placed 'the exceptions' in the text of the Council.

So for Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Lumen Gentium would contradict the past ecclesiology but for a discerning Catholic LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc, does not  contradict the past ecclesiology and so Lumen Gentium is defide  and orthodox with reference to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

In Lumen Gentium 14 the Council Fathers assumed being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to EENS.

This is an error.The text wrongly suggest only those who know and who are not in ignorance, need to enter the Church.

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Michael and Peter Dimond and other sedevacantists, may choose to reject Vatican Council II because of this error.I would not do so .I would simply interpret  invincible ignorance as being a hypothetical case.So it is not a practical exception to EENS. I do not have to reject Vatican Council II nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

I do not have to choose.

Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada have to choose.Since like some of the periti, they interpret invincible ignorance as referring to a 'physical body', in time and space. So invincible ignorance  would have to be an exception to EENS. They would have to choose between physically visible invincible ignorance and Feeneyite EENS.

Michael and Peter Dimond theoretically say there is no BOD(LG 14) and I.I(LG 16) but in reality they see them as 'physical bodies'. So they become exceptions to EENS. They  reject Vatican Council II as contradicting EENS and the past ecclesiology.I do not have to do all this.

Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Fr. Benedict Hughes have a long list of baptism of desire cases listed on the CMRI  website.This is an indication, that Vatican Council II would be a rupture with the past ecclesiology for them.The baptism of desire refers to 'physical bodies' in time and space for them.

I would have told Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noi that Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth/subsists it) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( invincible ignorance) do not refer to 'physical bodies' saved  and seen in the present times.But Edward Pentin did not know. When he asked Muller and Di Noia about EENS, in two different interviews for the National Catholic Register,they postulated  LG 8 and LG 14 as exceptions. Their new theology contradicts Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction.But Pentin, let it pass.Since it is the same for him too. LG 8 and LG 14 are exceptions to EENS . He did not notice it.

Bradley Eli praised Pope Benedict when he said that EENS today, for him, was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. Since for the CMTV Staff  too, BOD,BOB and I.I are 'physical bodies' in time and space. Even Tancred at the blog The Eponymous Flower made this same mistake-as some of the influential periti at Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades