Archbishop Vigano could comment upon how he supports the non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II and uses the New Theology to interpret the Council. The New Theology is based upon the false premise and inference.

When Vatican Council II is interpreted without the false premise there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. There can be no New Ecumenism, New Theology, New Evangelisation etc.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church.

All the 'new stuf' comes from assuming there is known salvation outside the Church. This 'known salvation' outside the Church comes from confusing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2 ,GS 22 etc as refering to visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.

This is false.They are always invisible for us and invisible non Catholics cannot be objective exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).

Only God can know if any one is saved outside the Church without 'faith and baptism'.We do not and cannot know of a single such case in 1965-2020.

So for me there is nothing in Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate etc which contradicts Feeneyite EENS. 

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective error.

There is a hermenutic of continuity when Vatican Council II is interpreted witout the false premise. Archbishop Vigano should talk about this.He uses the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II , as does Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and then they both wrongly blame the Council.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) is not magisterial on Vatican Council II.There are two interpretations of the Council and they choose the irrational one. How can the Holy Spirit make an objective error ?

Archbishop Vigano could comment upon this.He supports the non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II. He uses the New Theology to interpret the Council. The New Theology is based upon the false premise and inference.

-Lionel Andrades