When the traditionalists and conservatives interpret Vatican Council II without Cushingism then the Council will be ecclesiocentric and not a rupture with Tradition and they can they accept it.

Are you Christocentric or Ecclesiocentric? This could indicate if you are  liberal or orthodox as a Catholic.

The Catholic Church has always been ecclesiocentric.

Christocentric is not wrong or bad.

But traditionally the Church was Christocentric with an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It was necessary to believe in Jesus within the Catholic Church for salvation.

This is how the Bible was interpreted ( Mark 16, 16, John 3:5, Matt. 7:13 etc).

At Vatican Council II there were Council Fathers  who were Christocentric and others were Ecclesiocentric.However, today, aside from the liberals even the traditionalists and conservatives interpret Vatican Council II as Christocentric.The liberals accept this interpretation of the Council and the traditionalists reject it.

Cardinal Ratzinger  was Christocentric.Pope John Paul II was ecclesiocentric in Ecclesia di Eucharestia and Ecclesia in Asia.Cardinal Walter Kasper criticized Ecclesia di Eucharestia which did not permit the Eucharist to be given to Orthodox Christians. He said that it supported the old ecclesiology of outside the Church there is no salvation.

In Ecclesia in Asia which Pope John Paul II read out publicly in New Delhi the pope called upon all Hindus and other non Catholics to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was an ecclesiocentric and the bishops and cardinals at the Holy Office, the Archdiocese of Boston, along with the Jesuits,  in 1949 were Christocentric.

Those who were Christocentric were not rejecting the Church and those who were ecclesiocentric were not rejecting Christ.

But with Cushingism the liberals could reject traditional ecclesiocentrism and create a rupture with Tradition. They could re-interpret Vatican Council II as being opposed to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)  and so also the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the Social Reign of Christ, which were hinged on EENS.

So the real issue still is Cushingism.

Cushingites, who are aware of their error, pretend, that theoretical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are objective and personally known people. They then conclude that there is known salvation outside the Church. So the New Theology is outside the Church there is salvation.

Since outside the Church there was salvation for the Cushingites at Vatican Council II they produced a Council which was Christocentric.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are interpreted as personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So  no more was there an ecclesiocentric Church for the liberals Ratzinger, Rahner and the others at Vatican Council II.Even though BOD, BOB and I.I were not exceptions to EENS the liberals pretended that they were.They had to fake it.This was done by those who discerned that hypothetical cases never ever were exceptions to EENS.

They piled on more theoretical cases at Vatican Council II - LG 8, UR 3, GS 22  etc - as if it would strengthen their false reasoning.

When the traditionalists and conservatives interpret Vatican Council II without Cushingism, in future,  then the Council will be ecclesiocentric and not a rupture with Tradition and they can they accept it.

-Lionel Andrades