We agree theologically.There is no problem here.
The problem exists in another area.
For instance these statements of yours let us designate with the term T
1.It is quite simple Lionel. BOD is not an exception to the dogma EENS because one is saved by having the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity in their soul, in which case they are joined to the Church either in formal membership or being ordained thereto. -T 1
2.You have also failed to make the distinction between absolute and relative necessity, which is critical to this issue. -T 2
One can be a formal member of the Catholic Church and not have the supernatural virtue of faith in their soul (which means they don't go to heaven). - T 3
4. Similarly, God can infuse the virtue of faith in someone's soul (through a valid baptism) without that person being on the formal membership roster of a parish.- T 3
T1,T2,T3 refer to theology T.
T1,T2,T3 are not relevant to EENS (the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) for me.
Let me refer to being relevant with the term R
T is not R to EENS since T does not refer literally to explicit cases. T is not visible, it is not explicit (E).
If T is E then we have relevancy(R) with EENS.
If T is not E then we do not have relevancy(R) with EENS.
So T is not the issue.
You are constantly coming back to different forms of T.
T has nothing to do with EENS since there is no E.
If you say T is an exception or not an exception to EENS you imply that E exists. Since E exists it is relevant to EENS, it is an exception.
So when you say theologically T is not an exception to EENS, O.K it is fine here.We agree. We are all Feeneyites like St. Robert Bellarmine.
If you say that in the past for you T was always minus E and so T is not an exception to EENS then I would ask you the following questions to confirm your answer.
1.I Lionel, affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I also accept( theoretical) baptism of desire. Is this possible for you? Would I be rational ? Would I make sense?
(The baptism of desire is T minus E for me).
2.When the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 considers BOD as relevant or an exception to the dogma, then BOD is not theoretical, but an actual case, known personally?
It is T plus E ?
3. Reason tells us that BOD is not known in actual cases, it does not refer to someone known by name, then how could BOD be an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma? Who in 1949 Boston knew of a physical exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma i.e all need to enter the Church formally and there are no exceptions? Who saw someone physically saved without 'faith and baptism'? Who saw someone saved outside the Church?
4.So am I correct in saying that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake? They assumed a hypothetical, theoretical possibility was a known case without the baptism of water?
This would be an objective error on their part, since physically if someone was really saved as such he or she would be in Heaven and unknown to them in 1949 ?
Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume T plus E = R?
Did the Letter assume T plus E was an exception to EENS?