You said: "If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong."
Luther had the same kind of thinking, saying the entire Church had failed and was wrong. As we know he was condemned as a heretic for doing so.
When you and the rest of the Church infer that an invisible case is visible in 2016 this is a lie.
This was originally a lie in 1949 and yet it was consolidated in Vatican Council II.So they made it appear that 'the Church'had approved the lie and also a new doctrine. It also meant that 'the Church' had rejected the infallible teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the infallibility of the pope when he taught the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, ex cathedra.
So this is the 'new Church', the 'present Church' and you like the liberals are part of it.
Do not compare me to Luther.I choose to remain in the Church and I support my position with magisterial documents interpreted rationally.These are the same magisterial documents, accepted by the Vatican Curia and you, but interpreted with an irrationality.
I am not proposing any new doctrines like Luther and nor am I rejecting any magisterial teaching.
I am rejecting the New Theology, which is based on the irrationality of being able to see invisible cases.I am not interpreting any Church document with this theology while you are interpreting Vatican Council II and other documents with this Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology and there is a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
If the hypothetical/nonhypothetical condition were really important regarding baptism of desire, then the quotes from the Church on baptism of desire would certainly specify it.
Why should they have specified it before the Council of Trent ? It's a given!
Everyone knows that the baptism of desire is not explicitly seen and it refers to a possibility, a hypothetical case.This is something obvious.Even a non Catholic could confirm it. Even a school boy can confirm it.
It was the liberal theologians who made the irrational inference and then created a new theology upon this error. They 'condemned' Fr. Leonard Feeney and for some 19 years did not lift the excommunication so that the new doctrines based on the irrationality could be consolidated in 'the Church'.
Even Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the error hook,line and sinker.Pope Pius XII maintained his silence on this issue.
You'll notice not a SINGLE quote from the Church mentions anything about hypothetical or nonhypothetical. This condition is only in YOUR head, and nobody else's, and you are adding it to fit your belief. You are not fooling anybody.
When the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said that not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member since a person could be saved with .....this was an inference, that there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So if there are exceptions then it means what the world considered hypothetical was now assumed not to be hypothetical; what common sense would say is invisible was not visible, for the ecclesiaistics in 'the Church'.
I have quoted you an Archbishop, a Dean of Theology at a pontifical university in Rome, numerous priests and a well known lay Catholic apologist who have said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that the baptism of desire is not an exception.So this is not some pet theory of mine.
I am pointing out the irrationality so that we can all go back to the old ecclesiology of the 16th century missionaries, once the error is avoided in 'the Church'.
And how many times now have you come to the defense of "the dogma", as though you are some great defender of the faith.
Yes extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) is a foundational dogma of the Church which must be defended since other doctrines depend upon it.
Yet the infallibility of the Church is ALSO A DOGMA, yet you deny it.
I affirm the dogmas of the Church and I also affirm the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra and when he supports traditional teachings.If a pope rejects teachings on faith and morals and even if he has the support of the present cardinals I would reject it.Since it seems as if today the Church has been infiltrated.
Let me repeat - it is a DOGMA of the Church that the Church cannot teach error, and that General Councils are infallible. You blatantly deny this by saying Vatican II is valid and also teaches errors.
I am calling attention to the irrational theology.One can continue to accept all the teachings of the Church, all the dogmas, without using the irrational theology.
Change the theology and you change Vatican Council II, change the theology and you change the Church, you take it back to its rational and traditional teachings.
You defend dogmas when it supports your belief, and you deny them when it doesn't. You are a hypocrite.
I support all dogmas. I do not know of any dogma which contradicts what I believe in .
I affirm EENS and the baptism of desire.I assume EENS refers to the need for all to be physically incorporated into the Church since there cannot be any exception. I affirm the baptism of desire which is hypothetical.It is not an exception to EENS. So I affirm EENS without rejecting the baptism of desire.
I specifically pointed out, in the last e-mail to you, the magisterial teachings I support.
As like the other sedevacantist you would have a problem with Vatican Council II. You are really rejecting a Cushingite Vatican Council II and you are correct. You should continue to do so.
However you can also interpret Vatican Council II without Rahner's theology;, without mixing up what is invisible as being visible.In this way LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 all referring to hypothetical cases would not be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.In this way you would be affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X but then they would call you 'a Feeneyite' and this is what you would dread.