Michael Sean Winters chooses not to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf does not say anything. Why? Since MSW would ask Fr. Z,"Have you interpreted Vatican Council II without the irrational premise ?" He would have to say No. Otherwise it would mean he affirms the strict interpretation of EENS.

   

Michael Sean Winters chooses not to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf does not say anything. Why? Since MSW would ask Fr. Z,"Have you interpreted Vatican Council II without the irrational premise ?" He would have to say No. Otherwise it would mean he affirms the strict interpretation of EENS. 

Fr.Z says imagine the first 15 seconds in Hell...

The rejection of the dogma EENS is first class heresy it is a mortal sin.

Interpreting the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc with a false premise to change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Athanasius Creed  is first class heresy.

To knowingly interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a rupture with the popes of the past is schism....-Lionel Andrades