In response to these five questions which I sent him, a good Catholic, who is also a professor at a Catholic institution in the USA said that his answers would not turn out like my answers.
I agreed with him.
I said:Your premise will be invisible baptism of desire is visible in 2017. Then you will infer that these invisible cases are visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church as members in 2017 for salvation.
This was the reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
My answers will be different.
Since for me invisible baptism of desire and blood with or without the baptism of water is not relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So there are no objective exceptions to EENS in 2017. Any way you and I cannot practically meet someone saved outside the Church.
So for me there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS. The ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same.
For you VCII has to be a rupture with Tradition, in particular with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS.LG 16 refers to an explicit case for you. This is your inference,whether you are aware of it or not.
So your new theology, Cushingite theology, magisterial theology I concede, is irrational, non traditional and heretical.It is also wide spread in the Church.
My traditional theology without the irrational premise, is in harmony with the missionaries of the 16th century.
It is a rupture with Pope Benedict's statement in March 2016 on EENS no more being like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century since there was a development with Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
My position would be a rupture with that of Pope Benedict but in harmony with the three Church Councils which defined EENS.
Here are the five questions which Catholics disagree on.
Since their faith has been changed with an irrational premise.The popes have allowed it .
Now there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed,two interpretations of Vatican Council II, the dogma EENS has been rejected, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible referred to in old catechisms and statements of popes, is mixed up as being concrete, visible in the flesh cases when they are hypothetical. No one could have seen these cases saved, past or present. No one could have seen someone in Heaven saved outside the Church.
All this confusion, mixing up what is implicit as being explicit, subjective as being objective, theoretical as being concretely and defacto known, comes across, when you try to answer these questions.
1) The baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) with or without the baptism of water, refer to hypothetical cases they are not visible people in 2017.We cannot meet or see any one saved as such in real life ?
The point is that there are no physical cases of the BOD, BOB or I.I with or without the baptism of water in the present times.
My answer would be"No. There is no such physical case."
2) So there are no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ? Every one needs to be a member of the Church for salvation and BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions?
I would have to answer, "No there are no exceptions".
3) So when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII assumed that invincible ignorance(I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood(BOB) were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, the cardinals in Rome made a mistake ?
When the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 states 'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member', it is a mistake in the Letter?
I would say "Yes. they made a mistake ". One needs to be always be incorporated into the Church actually as a member!
4) There are no practical exceptions to EENS and there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II? Vatican Council II(LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) refer to hypothetical cases so they do not contradict EENS ( Feeneyite)?
I would have to answer"No. They do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS".
5) Then the important question is :"So Pope Benedict XVI was wrong in March 2016 when in the daily Avvenire interview he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. There is a development with Vatican Council II? He assumed there are practical exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II?
There are no practical exceptions to EENS in real life and nor are any mentioned in Vatican Council II?
I would say there are no practical exceptions to EENS in real life and none are mentioned in Vatican Council II. So Pope Benedict XVI made a mistake.