Pointed question to a contemporary 'conservative' theologian

If you were going to ask a very pointed question of a contemporary 'conservative' theologian that would 'out' the problem (heresy) you've identified, how would you formulate it?

Hi X...the good Catholic heretic, the informed Catholic dissident who assumes probabilities of salvation centuries back are objective examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times(2018) - and so contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils.The common conservative Catholic heretic who re-interprets the Nicene Creed to mean ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the  forgiveness of sins, and they exclude the one baptism,the baptism  of water.They are the baptisms of desire, blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc.' The conservative modernist and reprobate who(unknowingly in a misunderstanding) rejects Vatican Council II by interpreting all hypothetical cases as referring to non hypothetical and known persons, assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.So we have a heretic who rejects Tradition, the past ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors and is in schism with the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century, the past authentic Magisterium of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit.
This is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.

So when are you going to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)  as not having any exceptions, when are you going to affirm invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as just being invisible and unknown in personal cases, when are you going to affirm the Nicene Creed without the irrational premise which is invisible people are visible exceptions to traditional EENS, when will you interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with traditional EENS and without the invisible people are visible premise, when will you get back to the Church theologically and doctrinally without using false inferences ?
How can you violate the Principle of Non Contradiction and believe this is being Catholic? How can someone in Heaven be a visible exception on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology which upheld an ecumenism of return?

2.

Dear XXYYZZ,

How can a conservative Catholic like you interpret all magisterial documents by assuming invisible people are visible, unknown people are known and that  people who are in Heaven are also on earth at the same time and so are relevant and objective exceptions to the traditional  ecclesiology of the Church ?

How can you assume invisible for us baptism of desire is a visible exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

How can you suggest unknown cases of people saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'?

How can you wrongly teach that hypothetical cases of LG 16, LG 8,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are  explicit and known examples of salvation outside the Church, when they are known to no one earth?

Don't you know that for there to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the exception would have to exist, it would have to be a person seen and known, and not someone invisible and theoretical ?
-Lionel Andrades