CathInfo.com

Yes, this notion of a Church for which there's "no way to know" who's in it and who is not ... this contradicts Tridentine ecclesiology, which taught precisely that the Church is a VISIBLE SOCIETY whose membership is knowable.

Basically, then, to those who think like you here, and that includes a lot of Traditional Catholics, all we have is a shift in presumption.  Whereas the pre-Vatican II Church presumed that these were outside the Church, the post-V2 Church shifted the presumption in their favor.  That is hardly a monumental theological or doctrinal shift, but a practical one.  Now, even the V2 Church states that as a general rule non-Catholics cannot be admitted to the Sacraments because they are not members of the Church and not in "full communion" with the Church, but the 1983 Code of Canon Law states otherwise.

If I were to accept the notion that infidels and other non-Catholics could be within the Church, then I would cease to have anything "bug me" about Vatican II.  It's perfectly logical and consistent, then, with Catholic doctrine.

This is what the Crisis in the Church boils down to.

Either you believe in a Church that is a Visible Society whose membership is knowable or else you believe in a partly-visible-partly-invisible Church in whom are many (or some) who are formally within the Church but materially separated, and therefore not in "FULL" communion with the Church.

Ecuмenism derives very directly from this.  Ecuмenism isn't actually defined, as such, anywhere in Vatican II, but its general sense is that we have these "separated brethren" with whom we are united to a point but with whom we seek a full and perfect union.  This is the notion that the Church is divided (materially) though seeking unity.  Thus the argument that it contradicts Pius XI in Mortalium Animos evaporates by a simple formal/material distinction.  Sure, the Church is one, formally, but it's materially divided.

And then Religious Liberty derives from this also, but a little more indirectly.  If people please God, enter the Church, and save their souls by following their even-erroneous consciences, then, since people have a right to please God, enter the Church, and save their souls, then they have a right to follow their even-erroneous consciences ... thus, Religious Liberty.  By deterring them from following their consciences you could actually be placing an obstacle to their salvation.

THIS IS WHAT THE ENTIRE CRISIS IS ABOUT, and yet Traditional Catholics are for the most part totally asleep to this problem and have even become allies with those who's very principles lead to Vatican II.  You can't believe that non-Catholics are saved and at the same time object to Vatican II ecclesiology.

But God has allowed the fruits of this Vatican II theology to be so rotten that anyone can see that it is wrong and cannot be of God.  As +Vigano has pointed out, it's not a mere "accident," and bad spin or interpretation on Vatican II, but it's VATICAN II ITSELF that has caused this wreckage.

OK a couple things.

First, unless you're just gonna make the "but its not ex cathedra tho" argument (which you could, but if you did you could also do that with V2 so its a wash), there's a BLATANT doctrinal shift on religious liberty.  Like I see your argument about the shift in presumption even if I don't fully buy it.  But like, "there's no right to religious liberty" vs "there is a right to religious liberty", that's concrete, and we know which side the pre V2 popes were on.  So even if it seemed to "logically follow" from our ecclesiology/EENS theology that you could have liberty of religion, no you still can't.

As far as the presumption shift, hmmmmm

I see what you're arguing at the level of practical theory, but in practice I think we can see that the fruit of that alleged "shift of presumption" is utterly rotten.  I also don't see this as a sheer prudence thing.  If we can't even assume that Catholics normatively have perfect contrition, how much more so non Catholics?  I think, at any rate, that the practical fruit and ministry of Lefebvre's position would practically play out closer to yours than, say, to Bishop Barron's.

I do see the neat and tidiness of being able to say that its absolute though, and as a consequence, that V2's position is not merely grossly imprudent, but out and out heretical.  But then the problem is, you have to say the same thing about the 99% Trad position too.

Fr Feeney believed in BOD and he believed that it justified those that received it.  The position that got him in hot water was the he believed that no one could be saved unless they first received the Sacrament of Baptism (which is not valid unless done with natural water).  So that implies that he believed that those who received BOD-only would not receive the grace of final perseverance.  He was not excommunicated for that position.  He was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome when the pope ordered him to go there (disobedience).  In fact, Ratzinger's CDF confirmed that the strict interpretation of EENS was permissible.  Don't you think that the modernists would have found a way to outlaw that position if they could?  So even if you believe as I do that Ratzinger had no authority, at least you can appreciate his frank admission that there is no evidence that strict EENS is a condemned position.  On the other hand, I see that multiple popes tolerated a more or less subtle denial of strict EENS despite the apparent support for strict EENS in the magisterium. So the debates are going to go on and on until someone in authority puts an end to it.  And maybe like the Molinism debate, it will go on until the end of time, although at least in that case, the anathemas have ceased.