I have received an e-mail from an apologist.
You need to be more specific about what you are saying and also define your terms. What premise, what conclusion, what theology, what Tradition. Be very specific about what you are saying. Your point, if there is one, isnt' comprehensible.
Thank you for mentioning it.
what premise ?
The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Yet with the false premise and false conclusion this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the batism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?