CathInfo.com

And no Church Fathers, neither St Augustine, nor St Thomas, nor Trent, nor St Alphonsus back up this view.  
.
St Alphonsus died in 1787, right around the time of the French Revolution, which ushered in political anarchy and masonic influence around the globe, including the Vatican.  Let's not forget that in the late 1800s the masons imprisoned Pius IX and almost killed him.  So are we too naive to think the masons didn't infiltrate the church in the 1800s and start watering-down doctrine, especially EENS?  That's the only explanation for how BOD morphed from St Alphonsus' catechumen to applying to Hindus and Muslims...

Although the theory of salvation by implicit faith in a god (notice it is not capitalized) that rewards was first postulated in the early 1600's, it was never heard of by anyone but a few theologians in their ivory towers. It was unheard of by priests and the faithful till the very end of the 1800's and it got nowhere till the 20th century.

Keep in mind that the reason that ALL peoples worship their gods is to get something from them, a reward, good weather, food, victories over their enemies, riches, slaves, women.....

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
 
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.

Confucius was damned? What does that say for Buddha, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi...... the "holiest" of pagans? what does that say for the common Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Mason, Jew.....? 

Here's the thing that bugs me about V2.  Even if some infidels (individuals) can be inside the Church, their communities as a whole are not, and there is *no way* to know *which* infidels are inside the Church and which are not.

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.