Have you ever seen a baptized person in heaven? If not, does that mean it is "not part of your reality"? You are limiting reality to experiential knowledge obtain via the senses. This is not the Catholic way to view reality. You have never visibly seen purgatory, heaven, hell, or God, for that matter, but that does not mean these are not part of reality.
The issue is : is there salvation outside the Church, do we know of an Anonymous Christian saved outside the Church, are there exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)? Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 state that Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Centre were wrong and not every one needed to enter the Church? Did the Letter (1949) consider the baptism of desire and blood as excluding the baptism of water and being an exception to the Feeneyite/SBC understanding of EENS?
This is the issue.Since on this point depends the ecclesiology at Mass.Now there are two faiths at Holy Mass.There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. Upon this point depends the sedevacantism of the sedevacantists who reject Vatican Council and on this point depends the canonical status of the SSPX.
Have you ever seen a baptized person in heaven?
Lionel: No I have not.
If not, does that mean it is "not part of your reality"?
Lionel: It is not part of my physical reality in the sense that I can see the physical baptism of water but physically I cannot see the person saved in Heaven.
You are limiting reality to experiential knowledge obtain via the senses.
Lionel:For there to be an exception to the dogma EENS, for someone to be saved without entering the Church, he would have to be known and physically visible. Otherwise how can he be an exception ?. He would have to be empirically seen. He cannot be invisible to the senses to be postulated as a potential or actual exception to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
I have to limit it to a human being. I cannot extend the possibility to fairies or ghosts and then postulate a new theology based upon these ghosts being known exceptions to all humans needing to enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
This is not the Catholic way to view reality.
The present, contemporary Catholic way to view reality is to assume there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), so the inference is that there are known people, for them to be exceptions.Yet we know that these' known people' would be in Heaven if they are saved.How can people in Heaven be exceptions on earth? This is how the SSPX, sedevacantists and Vatican Curia view reality.
You have never visibly seen purgatory, heaven, hell, or God, for that matter, but that does not mean these are not part of reality.
They are part of my reality in faith. They are not the reality of others living on earth. They are not the reality of Hindus or Buddhists.I believe they exist.
I cannot believe that there were 20 cases of the baptism of desire this year. I cannot believe that someone on earth saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.I cannot believe that St. Emerentiana is an exception in 2016 to all needing to enter the Church. This would be irrational.How can someone from the past be a living exception to EENS in the present times(2016).
It is now being said through the new theology,based on this error ( CCC 1257) that every one needs the baptism of water for salvation but some people do not .This contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Similarly the first part of the Letter (1940) affirms the traditional dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part with exceptions.
Is it Catholic philosophy to say all need the baptism of water for salvation but all do not need the baptism of water for salvation since God is not limited to the Sacraments.(CCC 1257).Was it part of cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn's reality to know of someone who was saved without the baptism of water, since God is not limited to the Sacraments?
'God is not limited to the Sacraments' is hypothetical . The baptism of water is physical, visible and objective.How could the Catechism of the Catholic Church confuse what is invisible with what is visible. Why did it not make the objective-subjective, explicit-implicit, practical-hypothetical, distinction? It did not - since the cardinals assumed that what is implicit is explicit, what is hypothetical is a practical exception to EENS. This was their fantasy reality.It's not Catholic.