"Since these cases are explicit they become exceptions to the old ecclesiology and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)." Holding to the position that it is an exception to EENS to hold that a person has actually been saved, without being a visible member of the Catholic Church, is the error in your reasoning.
They are not exceptions for me. Numerous times I have mentioned this.
I am referring to you and the SSPX bishops and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in that line.
For all of you the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to cases saved without the baptism of water.
O.K . This is your position. They are saved wihout the baptism of water. The baptism of desire for you all is being saved without the baptism of water. This is also the magisterial teaching presently.
So if the baptism of desire is being saved without the baptism of water then it means someone has seen these cases.Someone knows of specific cases. Otherwise how could they be exceptions to EENS ? How would you know of a BOD case without thebaptism of water who is in Heaven?
It is you all who are saying that BOD must exclude the baptism of water.
Would you agree?
It shows that you have a wrong understanding of what is meant by EENS.
I am saying, as so many times on my blog, that the baptism of desire will include the baptism of water. This is also the position of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the St. Benedict Center. Theologically I agree with them on the dogma. I differ with them on Vatican Council II. LG 16 is not explicit for me as it is for them and for you.
If a person believes in the Trinity and Incarnation, repents of his sins, and is baptized on his deathbed by a heretic (having never met a Catholic priest), his salvation would not be contrary to EENS.
1. It would not be contrary to EENS theologically.
2.It would not be contrary to EENS physically too.In the sense there is no person known as such, we cannot meet or see any one saved as such.
So again, the problem is that your personal understanding of EENS is different than the understanding of the Church.
It is different from that of of the contemporary magisterium.It is also different from you and the SSPX - who support the contemporary liberal magisterium here.
However my view on EENS is the same as the Church Councils ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) which does not mention any exceptions. So I am in accord with the perennial magisterium while you are a break with Tradition. Since for you BOD exlcudes the baptism of water and allgededly there are known cases for you in 2016.I am in accord with St. Robert Bellarmine.
The present magisterium and you both are at odds with common sense in the sense : there are no known exceptions to EENS in 2016 so how could the BOD or any thing else be an exception. Can you see the fairies or ghosts?