Imagine a missionary going to the house of a Japanese pagan who has lived according to Natural Law his whole life and who had a perfect act of contrition for all wrongdoing and who believes in one God. This Japanese man according to implicit BoD is on his way to heaven. Then the missionary comes in to tell him about the Catholic Church. The Japanese man naturally rejects it because of lack of knowledge, a habitual resistance to new ideas, and other such factors. The man dies rejecting the Catholic Faith and goes to hell. The missionary then was responsible for sending this man to hell.


So if implicit BoD is true, proselytizing is actually bad for some people!

Even the otherwise normally heterodox Benedict XVI in an interview affirms this: The discussion then turned to the missionary impulse, which was once informed by the conviction that all who died unbaptized would certainly go to hell.  Benedict noted, “there is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma” and that since the 1950s “the understanding that God cannot let go to perdition all the unbaptized … has been fully affirmed.”  He noted that the great missionaries of the 1500s were compelled by their belief in the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, and that the changing understanding of this necessity led to “a deep double crisis”: a loss of motivation for missionary work, and a loss of motivation for the faith itself.  The emeritus Pope addressed both the theory of the 'αnσnymσus Christian' and indifferentism as inadequate solutions to the crises, and offered instead the idea that Christ's loving suffering for the world is the solution, which must become our model.  

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-recent-rare-and-lengthy-interview-26142

There was a public debate between Bishop Donald Sanborn and Dr. Robert Fastiggi.

+Sanborn opened by asserting that V2 ecclesiology is heretical.

But then he later asserted that non-Catholics could be saved.

Fastiggi pounced on this and asserted my very argument, that if they can be saved, they're in the Church, as per V2 ecclesiology.

In so doing, he destroyed Bishop Sanborn's argument.

Karl Rahner remarked that the biggest theological ʀɛʋօʟutιօn at Vatican II was in fact the notion that salvation is possible for those outside the Church, and yet the conservative group at the Council didn't give it a second thought.

That's because the destruction of EENS dogma had been well under way for a few hundred years, and even the likes of Archbishop Lefebvre believed in a flavor of αnσnymσus Christianity.

In any case, I have long argued that this was in fact the chief problem at Vatican II, but most Traditional Catholics refused to touch it.

Major:  There's no salvation outside the Church.
Minor:  Heretics, schismatics, and infidels can be saved.
Conclusion:  Heretics, schismatics, and infidels are in the Church.

Thus you get Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology, where the visible core is the Catholic Church, in which the Church subsists, but the boundaries of the Church extend outside of this core.

Thus it's true that these heretics, schismatics, and even infidels are "separated brethren", materially separated, but formally united to and within the Church.

Even Religious Liberty derives from this subjectivist soteriology.

Major:  People have a right to please God and to save their souls.
Minor:  People please God and save their souls even by following false beliefs.
Conclusion:  People have a right follow their false beliefs.

In fact, as per what you right, if you were to prevent them from pursuing their false beliefs, you may be hindering their salvation.

I was really sad to read that Archbishop Lefebvre believed that infidels could be saved without any faith in Christ. He was a saintly man and I love him as a brother in Christ, but on this point I do not agree.

The subsistence argument really works when you believe in the αnσnymσus Christian aka implicit BoD. It makes sense so traditionalists cannot fault Vatican II Fathers for including it if they believe in implicit BoD themselves.

Pope Francis’ lack of wanting to proselytize makes perfect sense when all of this is taken into consideration. Proselytizing becomes pointless and indeed even dangerous for salvation.