So many passages in Vatican Council II should not have been there :they are a mix up of what is explicit and implict,invisible and visible

Louie Verrecchio 1 continues to analyse Vatican Council II as only a struggle between the conservatives( Catholics) and the progressivists ( heretics, Masons). Of course this was there.
The conservatives however were at a disadvantage since they did not know about the error during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It was upon this error that the progressivists depended upon .

So much of the text of Vatican Council II which they got through is based on the 1949 mix up between what is implicit and explicit, objective and subjective, visible and invisible.

 In the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office the Magisterium did not know that the baptism of desire (BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB) had nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). They made a mistake.They assumed BOD and BOB were explicit cases and so were objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

The progressivists like Cardinal Richard Cushing enforced the error in the Archdiocese of Boston and then along with Fr.John Courtney Murray and the other Jesuits, placed it in Vatican Council II in so many places (some are cited below).

They had already condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney with the support of the Holy Office in Rome. The excommunication of Fr. Feeney was not lifted in 1965. It seems as if there was no opposition to the Boston error, which was Cushingism. It was made by Archbishop Cushing and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.

In 1949 the Masons were successful in eliminating the dogma EENS and were successful again at Vatican Council II. The confusion is all over the Council as invisible for us cases are cited as if they are defacto and objective. Hypothetical cases were made relevant to EENS.

Even Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of this  error in thinking. An irrational reasoning. The Society of St. Pius X supported the error and still continues to do so. They began to defend it. They now say that St. Emerentiana  was saved without the baptism of water. As if someone could see her in Heaven as such!

The conservatives at Vatican Council allowed this error , of there being known cases in Heaven without the baptism of water, to  get through. In other words there was known salvation outside the Church for them too.

Here are some passages which should not have been placed in Vatican Council II.They refer to speculative, hypothetical persons known only to God.

SUPERFLUOUS PASSAGES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

...many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. -Lumen Gentium 8

...nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. -Nostra Aetate 2

DOCTRINE WAS CHANGED IN 1949 AND 1965

Doctrine was changed clearly in 1949 with reference to the dogma EENS and the change is seen in these  texts in Vatican Council II ( quoted above).

The speculative texts were placed alongside  the orthodox texts.They should not have been included in the first place,   since they refer to invisible cases for us humans. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages on salvation. They are not even relevant.

For instance all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7) is not contradicted by those who  know or do not know about the Church. Since this category of people would only be known to God. They could not say that any particular person in 1949 did not know about Jesus and the Church and would be saved. They did not know any case of salvation outside the Church.

However in 1949 it was assumed that these cases were exceptions to the dogma.Vatican Council II suggests only 'those who know' need to enter the Church for salvation.For the Council Fathers  'those who know' refer to known persons who are relevant to the dogma.

I accept Vatican Council II but someone else could reject the Council saying  Vatican Council II made an objective mistake, since it has the above passages.These passages refer to speculative cases, and are not related to the connecting orthodox passages in the Council.

For example A is the orthodox passage and B is the speculative passage.

A

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. B Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him......- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Orthodox and speculative passages are placed together in Vatican Council II because of the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter issued by Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was also approved by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and the Council Fathers. They included Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Letter suggests unknown people in Heaven are known on earth. Similarly Ad Gentes 7 above allows Catholics to infer that there are persons inculpably ignorant of the Gospel who are known and seen on earth in 2015 ( as in 1949 and 1965) and who are explicit exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 (A)

Once we have identified this error i.e BOD is invisible instead of visible, we can read the superfluous passages mentioned above as being possibilities only.They are theoretical and hypothetical only. They would also be followed with the baptism of water, since this is the centuries old dogmatic teaching of the Church.
So we then have a different way of analysing Vatican Council II as comparied to Louie Verrecchio, Michael Voris, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,  the SSPX and the sedevacantists who are mixing up what is unknown as being known and then creating a new theology upon this factual error.

-Lionel Andrades
1 The Conciliar Creed of the Church of Man

https://harvestingthefruit.com/the-conciliar-creed-of-the-church-of-man/