The Coetus International Patrum did not know that if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to invisible cases in the present time (a fact overlooked in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office) then there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

The Coetus International Patrum did not know that if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II referred to invisible cases in the present time (a fact overlooked in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office) then there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

So the Council returns to Tradition immediately.

With the dogma EENS and the exclusivity of the Athanasius Creed intact there is nothing in the Council-text to negate the non separation of Church and State, the Social Reign of Christ in all legislation, the traditional ecumenism of return, traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic and general orthodoxy.

 The Council is no more liberal. It has the hermeneneutic of continuity with Tradition.

This series does not discuss what would be the conclusion of Vatican Council II, if LG 8, 14, 15, and 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 referred to only hypothetical cases, invisible people in 1965-2024? Instead this series is based upon LG 8, 14, 1, 5, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being examples of physically visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2024.

For example. Lumen Gentium 8 refers to where the Church subsists outside its visible boundaries. For the SSPX priests LG 8 is an exception for the dogma EENS. So they imply that LG 8 refers to a known person saved outside the Church. I do not make this error. LG 8 is always hypothetical for me.

For them Unitatis Redintigratio would refer to a Christian being saved outside the Catholic Church in imperfect communion with the Church, who is known and nameable. For me this is a hypothetical case. If anyone was saved as such it could only known to God. So UR 3 does not contradict the dogma EENS upon which was based the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all legislation, the non separation of Church and State to save souls from Hell and traditional mission and outreach based upon traditional ecclesiocentrism. It is the same Vatican Council II before us but our premises our different and so our conclusions would also be different. - Lionel Andrades