The bottom line is that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical, always, 24 hours. Whatever is your opinion about Fr. Leonard Feeney LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical. So Traditionis Custode cannot say that LG 8 etc are objective cases in 2021 and that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. LG 8, LG 16 etc being implicit always, is not a rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past Magisterium.

 

The bottom line is that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical, always, 24 hours. Whatever is your opinion about Fr. Leonard Feeney LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical. So Traditionis Custode cannot say that LG 8 etc are objective cases in 2021 and that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. LG 8, LG 16 etc being implicit always, is not a rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past Magisterium.

If you are conditioned to think that the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance (LG 16) are exceptions for Feeneyite EENS then the Council Fathers will become a puzzle for you. If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance  are not objective cases and so are not exceptions for EENS, Everything falls in place. All is clear. The Council is not a break with Tradition. 

The Council Fathers made a mistake in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. Since in principle LG 8 etc. can only be hypothetical cases and so do not contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.

The popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), made a mistake. They confused unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known exceptions, for 16^th century EENS, which had no exceptions. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake and it was made official when it was placed in the Denzinger and referenced at Vatican Council II (LG 16).It says outside the Church there is known salvation in the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so it is not always necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

This is the New Theology of Vatican Council II and so LG 8 etc. are cited by the Council Fathers. This New Theology confused what is invisible as being visible and then infers that there are practical exceptions for EENS. So the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc. are made obsolete. 

Once this is clear we can go through Vatican Council II smoothly. There are no passages which contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX or traditional ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue. The Council is no more for an against Tradition. It is only for Tradition. It is dogmatic on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (AG 7). LG 8, etc., are not exceptions for AG 7. They are not exceptions for EENS or the Athanasius Creed. So there is no more an objective error (confusing what is invisible as being visible) and there is no more a break with the past Magisterium (EENS, Syllabus etc. with no exceptions). Since the Council is traditional and rational, LG 8, LG 16 etc. are no more a theological opening for innovation and liberalism. The liberals would have to cite the Council with the False Premise. There is no other rational choice.Lionel Andrades