No not agreed! If something is a possibility, it does not mean that I saw it or witnessed it.
True but you cannot apply this rule to the baptism of desire etc.Since if the baptism of desire is a possibility it does not mean that for any one on earth it is a reality.
If you say that there is a possibility that it exists it does not mean that it could ever exist and be known to us.
In this way this issue is different.
It simply means can happen.
But for you it is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So it means there was a concrete case which was an exception to EENS at some time.
This comment pertains to any subject. It is taught by the Catholic Church so I will not find any fault in the teaching.
Before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 there were statement by popes and saints, when asked about the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), and they refered to a hypothetical case. It could not be any thing else.BOD and I.I are always hypothetical.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 however assumed BOD and I.I were exceptions to EENS Feeneyite. So now it was a concrete case.
So we have the magisterium before 1949 seeing BOD and I.I as being invisible on earth and we have the Church after 1949 seeing BOD and I.I as being visible exceptions to EENS.
If it were not taught by the Catholic Church then and only then would your comment make any sense at all.
So the Catholic Church after 1949 contradicts the Catholic Church before 1949.
Now there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with the irrational premise and the other without it.