Lumen Gentium 8 'subsists it' refers to a hypothetical and not objective case in the present times. So LG 8 does not contradict the past teaching on exclusive salvation when LG 8 is not interpreted irrationally.Liberals and traditionalists waste their time on this point because they do not identify the false premise

 

Lumen Gentium 8 subsists it refers to a hypothetical case. 

So LG 8 does not contradict the past teaching on exclusive salvation.

Liberals and traditionalists  waste their time on this point.

The 1985 clarification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican was also speculation. 

In 2002 of the CDF again there was no mention that LG 8 should not be interpreted with the false premise.

Dr. Taylor Marshall and the young men above in this video  interpret LG 8 with the false premise, as they do with LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.

There are no practical examples of someone being saved outside the Church where the Catholic Church allegedly subsists.

There would be confusion on this subject for a student of Fr. Francis Sullivan sj. He interpreted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance being exceptions. So they were objective examples and not hypothetical cases, for him. His political interpretation of Vatican Council II would have to misinterpet LG 8 etc.

Similarly there were the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II who made the same mistake with the false premise.They also made a mistake at Lumen Gentium 14 but it too can be interpreted rationally today by making the  hypothetical-objective distinction. 

Now we can re-interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and we will return to the old exclusivist ecclesiology.

-Lionel Andrades