1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it and is allegedly saved.Is this a hypothetical case for you?
My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.
It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.
2.So is this case of a catechumen who is saved with the 'baptism of desire' known or unknown for you ?
He is always unknown for me. He can only be known to God if he existed.
3.So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.
4.Would it violate the Principle of Non Contradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?
My answer is Yes since it is being assumed that someone invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and is known.Someone who is not concrete and tangible is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.
5.Similarly this case of an un-seen and known catechumen who is saved with the desire for the baptism of water,in the past too, would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases? Yes.It cannot be known. It is always an invisible case for us human beings.
FINAL TWO QUESTIONS
A. Do we personally know people saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?
My answer is that we cannot see them. They are not physically visible .They are not personally known to us in our time and space.B. Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there cannot be any known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were never exceptions.The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error.
C.So when Vatican Council II mentions this catechumen (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16),along with orthodox passages, which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, was it a mistake?
It was a mistake for me. Since these are 'zero cases' in our reality, they are not 'practical exceptions' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.I can read Vatican Council II while noting that these cases are hypothetical and theoretical only.This is not how the traditionalists read Vatican Council II.