The visitation is not apostolic since the magisterium over the centuries affirmed the Athanasiuis Cred etc with no exceptions and this is not being done by the visitors. We also now know that the Council and Catechism can be interpreted rationally and in harmony with apostolic teaching. This is not being done by the visitors.

The passages in red are hypothetical. They refer to invisible people. The passages in blue are orthodo. They are aligned with the dogma exrtra ecclesiam nulla salus and the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal. An invisible person cannot be a visible example of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2025. He cannot be a practical excepton for the dogma exrtra ecclesiam nulla salus. He cannot be an objective exception for Ad Gentes 7 ( blue) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So Vatican Council II in the red passages does not contrdict Tradition. It has a continuity with Tradition. Ad Gentes 7 is aligned with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not exceptions. This is the ratiional way of reading Vatican Council II. The conclusiion is traditional. But the for ecclesiastics who form Vatican visitations to the dioceses the red passages contradict the blue. So they imply that the red passages refer to visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is made obsolete for the,m, they do not affirm it.This is schism. They must affirm Vatican CouncilII interpreted rationally which does not have exceptions for the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which they must affirm in public.

I don't understand 'red being an exception for the blue' nor the visitation not being apostolic?