No response from David Domet, Louie Verrecchio and Boniface when I say that they can interpret Vatican Council II with invisible for us LG 16, LG 14 etc being just invisible.That's all.

See there  is no response from Boniface, Louie Verrecchio and David Domet when I say that they can make the transition from their interpretation of Vatican Council II with invisible for us LG 16, LG 14 etc being just invisible.That's all.They could make the correction on these following points:-
 1. Interpret explicit for us baptism of desire(LG 14) and invincible ignorance ( LG 16) as being implicit for us. They are not seen in the flesh in 2016.
2.All hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II could be considered just hypothetical(UR3 etc)
 3.They could acknowledge that a mistake was made in Vatican Council II when it mentioned the baptism of desire( BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in LG 14 and LG 16 respectively.
Since there cannot be any such case for us, in the past or present. This is a classic strawman.
BOD and I.I are irrelevant to the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14 which say all need faith and baptism, the Church is necessary for salvation.

4.The BOD and I.I are superflous  passages in Vatican Council II and come from the mistake in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Marchetti Letter assumed hypothetical cases( BOD and I.I) were explicit. Then it concluded that these 'explicit' cases were exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So now there are so many hypothetical cases in Vatican Council which are being confused as  explicit exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology based on EENS.For example, consider UR 3(imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2( a ray of that truth which enlightens), AG 11( seeds of the Word),LG 8( elements of sanctification and truth).These are all hypothetical references.They are not exceptions to the traditional teaching on an ecumenism of return and the need for all non Catholics and non Christians to formally convert into the Church with faith and baptism.
5.So these bloggers could affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and a Vatican Council II which has no exceptions to EENS in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc.

6.They could affirm EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, there being no 'development' with Vatican Council II.So they would be opposing the interpretation of EENS according to Pope Benedict XVI in the interview with Avvenire. They would also be opposing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican Council II as having exceptions to EENS, so there is a development of dogma and doctrine for the pope.

SWITCH FROM CUSHINGISM TO FEENEYISM AS A THEOLOGY

Boniface( blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam), Louie Verrecchio ( AKA Catholic) and David Domet ( Vox Cantoris) could change their interpretation of Vatican Council II from Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to EENS e.g BOD and I.I which are physically visible) to Feeneyism( there are no known exceptions to EENS e.g BOD and I.I refer to invisible cases in our reality).

SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING

So based on the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation they can affirm the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation with the non separation of Church and State and the necessary separation of State and secularism, especially so these days, when one considers the millions of babies being cruelly killed in abortion.

STILL TRADITIONALISTS

Boniface,Louie Verrecchio and David Domet would still be traditionalists. They would be traditionalists who attend the Tradtional Latin Mass but do not reject Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors all which are interpreted with hypothetical cases being just hypothetical.

-Lionel Andrades