Irrespective of what the SSPX labels Feeneyism Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally and it is in harmony with EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) which did not mention any exceptions

 

The SSPX website has to be corrected on many issues in which a factual error has been made.In any official statement they will have to acknowledge that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to only hypothetical cases.

1.In their interpretation of Vatican Council II, LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not only hypothetical cases. They are objective exceptions for the dogma  extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). They are visible cases. In this way there is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. If they were invisible cases they would not contradict the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino(1442) for the SSPX.

2.Their concept of Feeneyism on their website, is based upon the objective error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake when he accepted the 1949 LOHO and then also interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally.

The SSPX Angelus Press has published many books on Vatican Council II. They are all interpreted with the irrational( invisible people are visible) and not rational( invisible people are invisible, LG 16 refers to an invisible case in 1949) premise.

This includes the books of Archbishop Lefebvre, like Against the Heresies etc. -Lionel Andrades

https://sspx.org/en/about-feeneyites

https://sspx.org/en/errors-feeneyites

https://sspxpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Feeneyism.pdf