Did Pope Benedict intentionally not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that Vatican Council II was not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS ?

Did Pope Benedict intentionally not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that Vatican Council II was not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS ?

In a previous post I mentioned that Fr.Nicholas Gruner did not know about Vatican Council II (Feeneyite). He did not know that with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) the Council supported the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.

Similarly Chris Ferrara when he wrote his book The Great Facade he did not know that by switiching the interpretation of the baptism of desire(BOD) for example, you can get a completely different interpretation of EENS. BOD can be interpreted as being visible or invisible, explicit or implicit and the interpretation of the Council is one of continuity or rupture with the past magisterium.

Similarly when Ralph Martin wrote his books on evangelisation and salvation he did not know that Vatican Council II was Feeneyite and that his interpretation of the Council was irrational and Cushingite.

It means all these 50 years every one had the wrong interpretation of Vatican Council II.They were using the irrational premise. They assumed invisible for us baptism of desire was explicit. They also concluded that BOD excluded the baptism of water in the Church.So BOD and I.I (LG 16, AG 7, LG 14 etc) were explicit exceptions to Tradition for them. They wrongly placed the fault on Vatican Council II when the fault was really their premise, visible or invisible BOD and I.I.

So the question is: at the time of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know that Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) was in harmony with the dogma EENS and Tradition? If he did know does this mean that he intentionally did not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that Vatican Council II was not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS ? He did not say that Pope Pius XII had made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ?Or was it something he simply overlooked. After all none of the traditionalists corrected him. So the fault cannot be placed fully on him.

I have been writing on this issue for many years. There are thousands of blog posts on the Internet. I have also directly e-mailed the Vatican offices. I have personally sent my writings to the CDF office and to Cardinal Ratzinger. I have also sent him a copy once through an American family whom he met often. He had read what I had written.i have e-mailed Exclesia Dei so many times.

So in the March 2016 in the Avvenire interview did Pope Benedict not know that EENS(Feeneyite) was not ' a development' with the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century? Why did he say that EENS was ' a development' of EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries?

EENS is only a development with Vatican Council II( Cushingite).

Did he intentionally mislead Catholics in general for some reason or was it still an oversight ? After all the traditionalists and sedevacantists have not corrected him.Since they too are Cushingites and use the New Theology based on the false premise.Yesterday Rorate Caeili posted an analysis of Vatican Council II based on Cushngite reasoning. More of the same.

-Lionel Andrades