Whatever is your opinion of Fr. Leonard Feeney, LOHO, Pope Pius XII etc if LG 16 is invisible or visible determines the interpretation of Vatican Council II

I repeat whatever is your opinion of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) and Pope Pius XII, the interpretation of Vatican Council II depends upon how you interpret LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc.If they  refer to known or unknown people in 2018 saved outside the Church determines the interpretation.

You can support the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO)  but if LG 16 etc refers to unknown people in the present times, then Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict and traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.

So if LG 16 etc refers to known people saved outside the Church then Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), as it was interpreted by the Magisterium in the 16th century.

If LG 16 etc refers to unknown people in the present times then the Council does not contradict EENS as it was known to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.

Pope Pius XII, Fr.Leonard Feeney and the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) are irrelevant, since if outside the Church there is salvation or no salvation, according to Vatican Council II, depends upon how you interpret LG 16 etc.

You may cite Fr. John Zuhlsdorf or the Bologna School, or the National Catholic Reporter or Commonweal, but finally if LG 16 refers to physically visible or invisible people in our reality, determines Vatican Council II's hermeneutic of rupture or continuity with Tradition ; with EENS and the past ecclesiology of the Church.-Lionel Andrades