Lefebvrists misunderstand Vatican Council II like the liberals

 

The priest here a Lefebvrist, interprets Lumen Gentium with the false premise. This is the way Archbishop Carlo Vigano interprets the Council too. It is also the way Pope Francis and Bishop interprets the Council. They see LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. So there is a rupture with Tradition for them.

But LG 8,LG 14 and LG do not refer to known people in 2020 saved outside the Church. They do not refer to practical exceptions to EENS. Since in reality there cannot be an exception to EENS for us human beings.

Only God can know if someone' could be saved ' outside the Church. 

So to posit LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 as exceptions to EENS is an error for the speakers above. It is the same error being made in what they call the 'Novus Ordo' church.

They need to look at LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 differently and accept that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake.

Similarly Pope Pius XII made an error when he did not correct the same mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It assumed the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were visible non Catholics, saved outside the Church. So it says that it is not always necessary for someone to enter the Church.

The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

This same error was accepted by the Lefebvrists and Council Fathers (Cushing, Rahner and Ratzinger) at Vatican Council II.

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR3, NA 2, etc refer to hypothetical and invisible cases always and so cannot be an excepton to Feeneyite EENS. They do not contradict according to the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. 

This error has to be acknowledged by the present two popes and then corrected -Lionel Andrades