Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke would be in schism with the popes over the centuries, along with the schismatics popes from Paul VI to Francis, who interpreted BOD, BOB and I.I as examples of known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So they became exceptions to traditional EENS

How can Cardinal Raymond Burke say that he believes in Jesus and His Church when he will not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so in in harmony with exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return ?

How can he call himself a Catholic when he cannot say that Lumen Gentium does not have any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ?

He must make an announcement and clarify that LG 8 (the theoretical case of known non Catholics saved with elements of sanctification and truth in other other religions leading to salvation) does not contradict EENS as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center of his time.Similarly in 2019 we do not know of any who has been saved where the Catholic Church allegedly exists, outside its visible boundaries.(LG 8).

Similarly  LG 14 ( the hypothetical case of the unknown catechumen who dies before receiving the baptism of water which he sought and now is allegedly saved) refers to a theoretical case only. It is not a concrete and practical exception to Feeneyite EENS, the Syllabus of Errors on EENS or the Athanasius Creed on EENS.Theoretical cases cannot be exceptions to EENS. Speculation is not a concrete person saved outside the Church.

Similarly LG 16 ( the hypothetical case of an unknown person saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance or a good conscience and who is saved) is also theoretical and speculative for us human beings. It is not a literal case. It is not someone whose name and surname we know in the present times. So LG 16 cannot be an exception to EENS as it was known to the Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century.

 Without these corrections and clarifications Cardinal Burke's understanding of Vatican Council II is superficial and irrational.

He would intentionally be creating schism with the popes before Pius XII. They all interpreted the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as hypothetical cases only.

He would be in schism with the popes over the centuries, along with the schismatics popes from Paul VI to Francis,  who interpreted BOD, BOB and I.I as examples of known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So they became exceptions to what the media calls the 'rigorist interpretation ' of the dogma EENS. The Feeneyite version.-Lionel Andrades