THE LAW DOESN'T REFER TO HYPOTHETICAL CASES.
Canon Law does not refer to hypothetical cases.Neither does Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refer to hypothetical cases or the irrational inference.
Common knowledge of not being able to see the dead who are now saved in Heaven tells us that these cases are hypothetical for us. They are known only to God.
Neither do these documents mention the irrational inference, the false premise.
Yet when one infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma means to imply that these cases are known and visible to us.Otherwise how could they be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So there is no reference to the irrational premise in the documents you have mentioned but the inference is made. Hypothetical questions are considered defacto and objectively visible, to be exceptions to the dogma.
YOU ONLY WANT IT TO BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT ANY OTHER WAY WITHOUT ADMITTING YOUR ERROR.
Be precise. What is my error?
YOU HAVE THE SICKNESS OF THE DIMOND BROTHERS, BP WEBB, AND SO MANY OTHERS.
I affirm Vatican Council II. I do not have a problem with Vatican Council II. Why should I ? Vatican Council II is in perfect agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and not according to the SSPX, sedevacantists and others who use irrational Cushingism.
The Council of Trent only referred to the baptism of desire. It did not say that these cases were known and visible to us