Until Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider affirm Feeneyism as a salvation theology they will not be able to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity.Vatican Council II will continue to be a rupture with Tradition.
They must first say to themself that we humans cannot know of a person saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in 2016.This is something obvious.
Then they must say to themself that there are no known cases of persons saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3) or 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 9) etc in 2016. These are hypothetical and theoretical cases.
So every one needs to be incorporated into the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) and there are no known exceptions in 2016.There are no known exceptions to AG 7 and LG 14 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.
Once this is clear they are back to the old ecclesiology.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not contradict the ecclesiology of the Syllabus of Errors.
Vatican Council II is traditional.
It is the liberals who will be in a fix. They will not have any citations in Vatican Council II to support their non traditional position.Now they can do so since they mix up what is hypothetical as being objectively known in 2016.
A Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage in being held in Rome, which was originally planned for Norcia. All the participants interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus not with traditional Feeneyiism but innovative Cushingism. For them people in Heaven are assumed to be known in the present times who are saved without the baptism of water and they are physically visible on earth to be known exceptions to the traditional intepretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.This is the dogma associated with the old ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass.-Lionel Andrades
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