The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this.

MRyan:

Lionel Andrades wrote:March 3, 2015
Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

Really, I’ve read both, and can’t see where Fr. Hardon did not notice the alleged "mistake" in the 1949 Holy Office Letter, probably because I could not find the “mistake”.

Let’s see if you can find it for me. One response at a time.

Lionel Andrades wrote:

Letter of the Holy Office 1949: These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Mystici Corporis does not state that those who are united only by desire are personally known to us and so are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It only mentions these cases are possibilities. It does not state also that these possibilities could not also receive the baptism of water. This sadly has all been inferred by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.

 MRyan:

Category error. The question before us pertains to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - meaning, a question of SALVATION, and the conditions necessary to attain this end.

So where does the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus state that those [adults] SAVED by the laver of regeneration are or must be “personally known to us”, when we do not know the interior sanctity of any man, baptized or not? We only know that their salvation is certain IF they persevere in grace. But, seeing that we cannot "see" their souls, we can only say that their salvation is "possible" and conditional, the same with the faith-filled Catechumen the Church considers as one of her own, but not formally so.

Lionel:

the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire

 United to the Church only by desire? He infers  that those saved with implicit desire or the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Otherwise why mention them?  In other words they are known to us, we can name them. So since they are known to us they become exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. But how can they be known to us? They are in Heaven. Also how can we say that someone will be saved without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire? This would be known only to God if it was possible.

It is only because the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  assumes that these cases are visible, known,objectively seen, nameable that it refers to them. The baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma.

_____________________________________

So where does the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus state that those [adults] SAVED by the laver of regeneration are or must be “personally known to us”, when we do not know the interior sanctity of any man, baptized or not?

Lionel:

1.The dogma does not mention that those saved with the baptism of desire are known to us or are an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. Experience in daily life tells us it is not possible.
3.Neither does Vatican Council II make this irrational claim.
Yet for you and numerous good Catholics the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.

The dogma tells us that all need the baptism of water ( saved by the laver of regeneration) for salvation and there is no mention of the baptism of desire.The irrationality came into the Church in 1949.

__________________________________________

We only know that their salvation is certain IF they persevere in grace. But, seeing that we cannot "see" their souls, we can only say that their salvation is "possible" and conditional, the same with the faith-filled Catechumen the Church considers as one of her own, but not formally so.
I've asked you this question before, and all you do is repeat the same fallacy. Now please answer the actual question, or tell me which premise behind it is wrong - and prove it.

Lionel:

The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since a theoretical case, a speculative case, cannot be a defacto, objective exception to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation in 2015. That you still mention this case would suggest that you know who this Catechumen is, personally.

To presume that we personally know this Catechumen is a false premise. Then to conclude that this hypothetical person is an exception to the dogma is a false conclusion. A hypothetical person cannot  be an explicit exception.

Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this.

-Lionel Andrades

 

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1273-vatican-council-ii-interpreted-without-the-irrational-premise-the-sspx-could-affirm-this#9758