The magisteriuim is wrong to assume hypothetical cases( baptism of desire, invincible ignorance) are explicit and so are exceptions to EENS

The present magisterium is wrong since it assumes there are known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times and so it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The magisteriuim is wrong to assume hypothetical cases( baptism of desire, invincible ignorance) are explicit and so are exceptions to EENS.

The magisterium is wrong in the Baltimore Catechism to assume there are known cases of a catechuman saved without the baptism of water and with the desire for the baptism of water before he dies.This is a theoretical case. 

The magisterium is wrong in interpreting LG 16 (invincible ignorance) as referrring to an explicit case and so Vatican Council II becomes a break with EENS.

Comments from the blog post Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

Disappointment with Louis Bouyer's Memoirs

..there is not a single person who claims that the baptism of desire (BOD) is objectively visible to us human beings.
ABS knows not to attempt this but he will attempt it anyways (He's Irish and, thus, is attracted to lost causes)
Lionel: Yes it is a lost cause to support the contemporary magisterium which supports an objective error, an error of observation.
_____________________

Post for all of us to read anywhere the Magisterium defined as necessary for the Baptism of Desire that it be observed by you or anybody else.
Lionel:So then present magisterium is wrong since it contradicts the pre Council of Trent magisterium on exclusive salvation in the Church.
The present magisterium is wrong since it assumes there are known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times and so it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no known cases in 2016.
The magisteriuim is wrong to assume hypothetical cases( baptism of desire, invincible ignorance) are explicit and so are exceptions to EENS.
The magisterium is wrong in the Baltimore Catechism to assume there are known cases of a catechuman saved without the baptism of water and with the desire for the baptism of water before he dies.This is a theoretical case.
The magisterium is wrong in interpreting LG 16 (invincible ignorance) as referrring to an explicit case and so Vatican Council II becomes a break with EENS. I can choose to interpret LG 16 as being invisible instead of visible. Then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS.This is a radical change in the interpretation and the magisterium was not aware of it.
___________________________

This is a personal obsession of yours that has not one whit to do with Tradition
Lionel:I am responding to all these irrational suppositions and theories which are now considered 'traditional' but which is a break with the centuries old traditional teaching on salvation.The break comes with an irrational inference which is constantly being used by traditionalists to interpret Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Baltimore Catechism.I am simply responding to all of you.
_____________________

Saint Emerentiana is in Heaven. She was never Baptised with water. She was Baptised in bloodLionel:Who was the person in the Church who saw her in Heaven without the baptism of water?
Does the Church say that someone had this gift to see people in Heaven with or without the baptism of water?
Are you going to name someone or are you going to continue with this speculation?
Then when I have to continuously respond to this irrationality you call it an obsession.

-Lionel Andrades

http://pblosser.blogspot.it/2016/03/disappointment-with-louis-bouyers.html