The theology mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, is meaningless and does not apply.In a way they kind of duped all of us, including me

Lionel, where does the Church teach that those "invisible" cases of people of people having been infused with the supernatural virtues cannot be saved unless they become formal members of the Church. Please answer this question directly. If you cannot do so, then your distinction is contrived.Lionel: I know you are sincere but you still have not understood what I am saying.I am not useing the familiar apologetics of the SBC-SSPX on this subject.I am asking you to step aside from theology for a second, since the theology mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, is meaningless and does not apply. In a way they kind of duped all of us, including me. There is no physical case of the baptism of desire. There is no known case of the baptism of desire. We cannot meet ot see any one saved with the baptism of desire. Yet they have created a theology over this non existent case. There are all sorts of theological speculation of a case which does not exist. There is no connection between the theology of the Letter(1949) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). All that theology is fine in itself it is rational and acceptable but the moment it is placed in relation to EENS it is meaningless.It has nothing to do with EENS. For example 'God can infuse the virtue of faith in someone's soul...without that person being on the formal membership roster of a parish'.Yes. Wonderful. Acceptable. But your not saying this has any connection with EENS? It has not connection. Since a theoretical case cannot be an objective exception to all needing to be fomal members of the Church for salvation. To be an exception some one has to exist. The magisterium did not notice this . They overlooked this error in 1949. Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger carried over this error onto  many Church documents e.g Redemptoris Missio.

Lionel, where does the Church teach that those "invisible" cases of people of people having been infused with the supernatural virtues cannot be saved unless they become formal members of the Church. Please answer this question directly. If you cannot do so, then your distinction is contrived.Lionel: Now lets look at this in the theological mode. The Church on the contrary teaches that those invisible for us cases having been infused with the supernatural virtues can be saved without becoming formal members of the Church. The Church suggests there are exceptions.This is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc. CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments. So in itself this speculation on a case unknown to anyone in particular, in the Church over the centuries, is not controversial.It is an opionion, a view, a theology. The irrationality comes in when it is assumed that this case is explicit, objectively seen this year. This happens when this theology is put forward as an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS. If it is an exception, then it is a known case. (But how can it be a known case when the person is Heaven and not on earth!) So indirectly it is being said that this theology refers to a known case. Otherwise why would it be mentioned with  reference to EENS? For example God is not limited to the Sacraments. This is acceptable. Who is going to argue with this? No one.It makes sense. God is all knowing and all powerful and so He is not limited to the Sacraments, if he chooses not to limit himself. But this line is placed in CCC 1257 which says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.God has limited salvation to the baptism of water in the Catholic Church! This is the message here. So in CCC 1257 the Church is saying God has limited salvation to the baptism of water and it also suggests God is not limited to the Sacraments since there are known exceptions! If it is not referring to a known case then then why is it mentioned here? It is mentioned since it was assumed that his line refers to a known case. The baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) refers to a known case. Being saved in invincible ignorance refers to a known case for the magisterium after 1949. Theoretical, hypothetical cases which would only be known to God are known cases for the magisterium. _____________________________ Please answer this question directly. If you cannot do so, then your distinction is contrived. Lionel: When the Church mentions the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance( AG 7, LG 14 for example ) it implies that ' these "invisible" cases of people having been infused with the supernatural virtues" can be saved without becoming formal members of the Church.This is implied when this inference is placed in relation with EENS or orthodox passages in Vatican Council II, for example, which support EENS( AG 7,LG 14 i.e all need faith and baptism for salvation). __________________ 'that those "invisible" cases of people of people having been infused with the supernatural virtues cannot be saved unless they become formal members of the Church.' Lionel: The Church since 1949 does not say all need to be formal members of the Church since the magisterium assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. So now magisterial documents like Dominus Iesus use Cushingism as a theology and not Feeneyism. -Lionel Andrades