Bishop Schneider could answer one simple question: Does LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2; GS 22 refer to hypothetical cases only in 2020 or are these references to physically visible cases in the present times ?

From Gloria TV

Bishop Schneider Lists the Errors in Vatican II

Bishop Athanasius Schneider believes that most of the Vatican II texts are "good," but concedes that some are "ambiguous" but interpretable [in whatever direction one wants], and few downright erroneous as “also Archbishop Lefebvre” (+1991) pointed out.

Lionel: The texts which the bishop considers 'ambiguous' are passages which refer to hyothetical cases.

He has to keep the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) before him. Then he must ask himself if there are any exceptions to EENS. There will be orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS. Then there will be the 'ambigous' passages. For example there will be orthodox and amgibous passages in Ad Gentes 7. The orthodox passage says all need faith and baptism for salvation. But the 'ambigous' passage refers to those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.

Since invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to EENS for Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall these are confusing passages.

But if I.I and BOD are not exceptions to EENS, and the orthodox passages, then these are not ambigous passages. Since they are hypothetical and theoretical only. So they are not exceptions to EENS for me.

So for me there are the orthodox passages which support EENS and there are speculative passages which refer to theoretical and cases only which are not exceptions to Tradition.

Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS for the bishop. So Bishop Schneider implies that the ambigous passages refer to physically visible non Catholics. Otherwise they would not be exceptions. 
This is irrational. Since there cannot be physically visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. If any one is saved as such , without faith and baptism, it can only be known to God. So there cannot be any exception to EENS mentioned in Vatcan Council II.

LG 16 and NA 2 refer to hypothetical only, always.

_________________________

He told Taylor Marshall (July 26) that the first part of Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy is “really good,” while the second part calls for a revision of the liturgical books. This implies a condemnation of the rites as they were celebrated for millenniums, Schneider explains, “This is revolutionary.”

He qualifies the statements in Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate 3 which claim that Catholics and Muslims “adore” the same God as erroneous.

Schneider explains that Catholics adore God with a supernatural act, in Spirit and Truth which is substantially different from Moslems adoring the one existing God by a natural act.

Finally, Schneider criticises the understanding of religious freedom in Dignitatis Humanae 2 which assumes that there is a natural right – willed by God – to perform idolatry.

This error is for Schneider at the root of John Paul II’s inter-religious Assisi meetings (1986), the Abu Dhabi document (2019), and Francis' Pachamama cult (2019).

Lionel: Yes since this is the way Pope Francis and the liberals interpret Vatican Council II even though they have the same rational choice as all of us.

There is one God, the Creator but there is also Hell and so there is true and false worship.There is only true worship in the Catholic Church and there is nothing for me in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc to contradict the the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation being there only in the Catholic Church.

This would be the teaching in a Catholic State with the non separation of Church and State.For me there is nothing in Dignitatis Humane to contradict Tradition. This was also the view of the editor at Rorate Caeili and a few other traditionalists.

We have to acknowledge that at least some of the Council Fathers like Archbishop Cushing,used the new theology.ThisI call Cushingite theology, it is based upon the irrational theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO). So this was an objective error in LOHO. It was repeated later in Vatican Council II. This cannot be Magisterial. It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.

So we have to keep this in mind when reading Vatican Council II.

However even with this error in the Council we can still Vatican Council II without mixing up what is invisible as being visible.So then there are no ambiguous passages in the Council.There are the orthodox passages which support 16th century EENS and there are hypothetical passages which do not contradict EENS and the rest of Tradition( Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc). They do not contradict the orthodox passages.
Bishop Schneider could answer one simple question: Does LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2; GS 22 refer to hypothetical cases only in 2020 or are these references to  physically visible cases in the present times ?-Lionel Andrades
https://gloria.tv/post/cemPbRP2XG663o49wNT1sEkHV