I am not criticizing the theology per se. I am criticizing it's being placed with reference to EENS as an exception.

Here is a comment on the blog post :
Meaningless, superflous theology in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/meaningless-superflous-theology-in.html

You are falling onto error based on your private judgment.  The theology in the Holy Office letter is nothing but the common theology of the Church, which had been taught in seminaries for centuries before the Letter was issued.  The best thing you can do is set aside your personal opinion and accept the theology contained in that letter.  You should also read our book, specifically chapter 4, as it delves very deep into this issue.  

Lionel:

Your still missing the point in this above report.

I am not criticizing the theology per se.

I am criticizing it's being placed with reference to EENS as an exception.

_______________

The theology in the Holy Office letter is nothing but the common theology of the Church, which had been taught in seminaries for centuries before the Letter was issued.

Lionel:

Yes but the connection was not made with EENS.

For St. Robert Bellarmine, was being saved with the  baptism of desire, explicit? Did he any where state this ? Did he infer that the  baptism of desire must exclude the baptism of water and it would be an exception to EENS?
The Council of Trent mentions 'and the desireof'. Does it state that this is explicit? No.It has to be inferred as such.Does it state that it is an explicit exception to EENS? No.It has to be wrongly inferred as such.

So the inference is made but the text does not state that 'the desireof' refers to someone saved without the baptism of water and so it is an exception to EENS.

So who makes the inference is important. The inference is made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I do not. I accept the theology as possibilities only. Theoretical possibilities. Invisible cases for us in 2016. So they are irrelevant to EENS.I have avoided the wrong inference.

It is the same theology above but with two interpretations. One with the irrational inference and the other without it.

 The passages I have quoted above it is wrongly assumed by Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani as referring  toknown cases. So these objectively visible cases, for him,  become relevant to the dogma EENS. They are inferred to be exceptions by him personally.Zero cases in our reality are assumed to be exceptions to the dogma EENS.

So the theology in itself is not a problem. It is the inference which creates the error.It was wrong to infer that hypothetical cases were explicit and so exceptions or relevant to EENS.

________________

The same inference is made by the sedevacantists CMRI,MHFM and the community of Bishop Sanborn.They all infer that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, etc refer to explicit cases in the present times. So they conclude Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.

So they say critically that this non traditional conclusion  cannot be the teaching of the Church ( they are correct but they do not know the cause). So they criticze the popes and have gone into sedevacantism.

When I ask them if LG 16 etc is explicit or implicit,visible or invisible for us, they will not answer. I tell them that  they (LG 16 etc)  are invisible for me.So LG 16 does not contradict the dogma EENS. The old ecclesiology has not changed on other religions and ecumenism.There is nothing in the Council to contradict EENS while AG 7 and LG 14 support EENS. So with ecclesiology constant, as with the past centuries, where is the basis for their sedevacantism. It is not there in Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades