There is no denial from Nicole Winfield and Phillip Pullela, correspondents of Associated Press(AP) and Reuters to the blog post which I tweeted them.The report was titled 'Phillip Pullela and Nicole Winfield have been interpreting Vatican Council II with the Baltimore Catechism error'.
Without the irrational inference from the 1808 Baltimore Catechism, Vatican Council II does not contradict the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the old exclusivist ecclesiology.
The contemporary Magisterium overlooked a factual error in the Baltimore Catechism and then also in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Boston Case.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know people who are in Heaven as we see and know people on earth.Persons saved without the baptism of water are not visible on earth. Those saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) or the baptism of desire (BOD) are invisible cases in 2015.We cannot administer them baptism as we can the baptism of water.They are not concrete and known in personal cases as in the case of the baptism of water.So they cannot be considered baptisms like the baptism of water in daily life and nor can they be considered exceptions all needing the baptism of water in the present times.Practically they do not exist.
Yet they were placed in the Baltimore Catechism in the section on Baptism and its necessity and it was inferred that they were exceptions to all needing the baptism of water which is a dogmatic teaching.
Similarly today LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II is assumed to be referring to visible, instead of invisible cases.So Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) becomes a break with the exclusivist ecclesiology of EENS.
It is because of the inference(explicit-implicit) that Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS.
So if the Reuters and AP correspondents would interpret LG 6 etc as being invisible for us , since this is rational, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS and the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.
The ecclesiology of the Church would be the same before and after Vatican Council II.
Nicole Winfield can no more say that the SSPX rejects the 'reforms' of Vatican Council II, since 'the reforms' are there only when LG 16 is explicit.
There is no 'revolution' ushered in by Vatican Council II if Phillip Pullela considers LG 16 invisible for us in 2015.
They also mention that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated , without saying that he was excommunicated for not accepting Vatican Council II with LG 16 explicit.
They now know that the SSPX can accept Vatican Council II and also the old ecclesiology. They have an option.
So far there is no comment from the AP and Reuters correspondents to these blog posts which I have sent them.