The difference between me and others is that I interpret Vatican Council II at face-value, according to the text,while the others interpret the text with an inference.

The difference between me and others is that I interpret Vatican Council II at face-value, according to the text,while the others interpret the text with an inference.
Without the inference you could be interpreting Vatican Council II like me. The conclusion would be traditional and according to the old ecclesiology.It would be based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known over the centuries.
This would mean that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So when I tell people that I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known over the centuries at first they think that  I have rejected Vatican Council II. They assume that I am a traditionalist or sedevacantist who has rejected the Council.
Or they assume that I am a Feeneyite who has rejected the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and also Vatican Council II. This is not true.
I do not have to do all this.Since when I read the text of Vatican Council II hypothetical cases like being saved in invincible ignorance or the catechumen with the desire for the baptism of water who dies prematurely, refer to hypothetical case. So for me they are possibilities, theoretical possibilities known only to God. So they are not relevant to the dogma EENS. So I do not have to reject implicit for us and known only to God baptism of desire etc.It is compatible with Feeneyite EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.
So I do not reject the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, nor the dogma EENS and neither do I reject Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Things couldn't be better!
By not mixing up what is invisible as being visible, as does the present magisterium, all Catholics can interpret magisterial documents like me.

All religious communities can affirm Feeneyite EENS and invisible in 2016 baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

They can all affirm invisible in 2016 for us being saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), seeds of the Word(AG 11), good and holy things in other religions(NA 2), invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc .So Vatican Council II would not contradict the old ecclesiology with the ecumenism of return nor the teaching on outside the Church there is no known salvation.
Other Catholics may say that they already accept all magisterial documents but the odds are it is with the irrational new theology based on invisible cases being objective.They are inferred to be known exceptions in the present times to the dogma EENS.This is irrational , non traditional,heretical and very common among Catholics.-Lionel Andrades

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/10/26/catholics,_lutherans_prepare_for_historic_reformation_events/1267992