For Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), the passages quoted above from Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II, refer to someone visible.Since he infers that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiamn nulla salus as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.If they were invisible they would not be exceptions or relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For him these passages are also exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism for salvation.All.
So it is upon this irrationality that he and the two popes and officials of the International Theological Commission, interpret Vatican Council II.So his premise is wrong and the conclusion is a break with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite), Athanasius Creed etc).
For Cardinal Muller,Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Di Noia, Archbishop Pozzo and others at the CDF they would consider seen, what I would consider as being 'not seen'.What is invisible, according to common knowledge, they postulate as being visible. I cannot see people in Heaven or on earth saved with the baptism of desire. They would infer they can see such persons. Then they will support the New Theology, which assumes people who are not seen are really seen.
For the Vatican Curia,Lumen Gentium 16 refers to someone visible. For me this can only be a reference to someone invisible in 2016. So when Wikipedia and other secular media, infer that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the Feeneyite rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is no opposition from the Vatican. Since they agree with Wikipedia on there being visible exceptions to EENS.LG 16 is the common example.
Wikipedia,the National Catholic Register editorial staff,apologists at Catholic Answers and Catholics in general assume we can see a baptism of desire case in 2016.
Reason tells us that we cannot see someone saved in invincible ignorance in 2016. One does not have to be a Catholic to know that being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus said the apologist John Martignoni.Now the Vatican Curia has still to make this common place announcement.
Our two popes are Cushingites.
For me the baptism of desire can only be invisible. I cannot see people in Heaven. So if someone was saved with the baptism of desire, allegedly without the baptism of water, I would not be able to physically know about this case.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed invisible cases awere visible. Theology in the Church was derailed.The Letter contradicted the centuries-old magisterium on a faith issue.With an inter-office letter from one bishop to another, which was kept secret for three years, a dogma (EENS) defined by three Church Councils was discarded.The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) would call this dogma an 'aphorism'.
The mistake was carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits active at Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965). They still had not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This magisterial error has to be acknowledged and corrected by the CDF it is a doctrinal error.The SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate are being forced to accept it, with the interpretation of Vatican Council II, to have their position regularised.