So much of Vatican Council II is based on the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it inferred that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible to us in real life.
When Vatican Council II says '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'(LG 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(AG 7) ,these statements are based on the objective error in the 1949 Letter.
When the Council refers to 'seeds of the Word' (AG 7) again there is no such case and yet it is made relevant to be included in the Council.We do not know any one on earth saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' or who 'subsist it' ,in or out, of the Catholic Church (LG 8). Yet all this is mentioned.
This was because the Letter (1949) assumed hypothetical cases are real and personally known, for them to be mentioned in the Council-and not pope corrected the error.It was politically too sensitive after World War ended and the state of Israel was created.
It also seems, as if the dominant powers, called up Vatican Council II officially and in a big way, only to implement the 1949 magisterial error and to eliminate the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
This error- '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'(LG 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(AG 7), should be sufficient reason, it would would seem superficially, for some, to reject the Council. This is not true. Since Vatican Council II can also be interpreted traditionally because of a certain aspect of the error; the type of error it really is.
'For instance in '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'(LG 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(AG 7),we simply say that we do not know who know or does not know.Humanly speaking we cannot judge who is saved as such.So these statements do not contradict Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) when it also says 'all', need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
So why were these lines placed in Vatican Council II? Hypothetical cases.
Being saved in invincible ignorance and allegedly without the baptism of water is a hypothetical case. There is no such case personally known to us. There is no visible case.Yet the Letter (1949) assumes this is a visible case.Since it was visible it was considered an exception to all needing to convert into the Church.So this in invincible ignorance, known cases, could be saved, the Letter and Vatican Council II, says only those who know and do not enter the Church are on the way to Hell and not all non Catholics in general.
The error is based on a wrong inference from the 1949 Letter, and this inference can be identified and avoided and Vatican Council II becomes traditional.The Council would then support EENS and the Council of Trent on the necessity of the baptism of water for all with no known exceptions.
This would not be the Vatican Council II of the Jewish Left and the Vatican Commission for Relations with the Jews. Since it would not be an irrational interpretation, as there's is. Instead it would be a traditional interpretation which says Jews and other non Catholics, need to convert for salvation.It would not oppose the traditional understanding of EENS.It would be in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the dogma.
This would seem all too good to be true for the SSPX and conservative Catholics and yet it is true.It's a complete turn around from the way they interpret the Council since the time of Archbishop Lefebvre.
The exclusivist ecclesiology is all there in the Vatican Council II text when one identifies the 1949 error and sees the same pattern in Vatican Council II i.e hypothetical cases are wrongly assumed to be defacto and personally known. Then they are inferred to be exceptions to the orthodox passages, which support the traditional interpretation of EENS.
So when the liberals cite Vatican Council II as a political slogan for change it is false. There is no reference text in the Council, unless hypothetical passages are assumed to refer to known cases in the present times.
The ambiguity was there only when you look at the Council through the lens of the 1949 error and most Catholics do just this.Change your perspective and the Council changes.Identify the implicit-explicit distinction which has come into the Church with the Baltimore Catechism and the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.Identify hypothetical passages as being hypothetical only and leave them at that.
At Baltimore, USA they made a choice.It was an irrational one.They confirmed that choice in 1949 in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.The error became official.They inserted the error all over Vatican Council II.The Catechism(1992) supported the error.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be defacto and objective and then they are linked with the dogma EENS.
We see that when the Catechism (1992) on The Necessity of Baptism ( 1257) says 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', how you interpret this line, depends upon your point of view.If you assume that this line refers to known cases then this line contradicts CCC 1257 which also says the Church 'knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'. CCC 1257 will be saying all need the baptism of water but some do not.If in your view the line, 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' refers to hypothetical cases for us, which are known only to God if they do exist, there is no contradiction in CCC 1257.There are no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
All needing the baptism of water for salvation( the first part of CCC 1257) refers to defacto, visible cases, personally known.They are concrete. While God is not limited to the Sacraments ( the second part of CCC 1257) refers to de jure ( in principle), hypothetical and theoretical cases.
(We have the defacto-dejure ( in principle) distinction in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, in another context.)
CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with the defacto-dejure, objective-subjective, visible-invisible distinction.
Similarly Vatican Council II does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction when one is aware of the defacto-dejure, objective-subjective distinction.There is no confusion.
However when Vatican Council II says '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'(LG 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(AG 7), this is a clear mistake from the Letter (1949) and it should not be considered an exception to the traditional St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier teaching on all needing to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
For me it was amusing to see Fr.Norbert Hoffmam sdb., Secretary of the Vatican Commission for the Jews, quote Vatican Council II and Nostra Aetate unaware of the explicit-implicit distinction.He was repeating the Baltimore-Boston error once again..
After the Council of Trent to Vatican Council II the visible-invisible, explicit-implicit distinction is made : there is a rational or irrational option
Popes have not checked this objective error. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/popes-have-not-checked-this-objective.html
Archbishop Lefebvre did not see the same wrong reasoning, as the inference in the Letter(1949) used in Vatican Council II.The SSPX has still not noticed this !!!
Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican
Council II with Cushingism : this is manifest heresyhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/pope-francis-and-cardinal-muller.html