How can a non-existing person in 1949 be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church and all needing to be members?

IRRATIONAL PHILOSOPHY

How can some one in the past, allegedly saved with the baptism of desire (and without the baptism of water), be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 1949?

 How can someone who lived in the past and was allegedly saved without the baptism of water be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,for the cardinals, who issued the Letter of the Holy Office from Rome ?

How can a non-existing person in 1949 be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church and all needing to be members? 

Secondly, who in the past could physically see someone saved in Heaven who was there without the baptism of water? 

How can it be said that St.Emerentina who died without the baptism of water in the Church in the fourth century, is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiamn nulla salus (EENS) in 1949,1965 or 2017?

WHO,WHERE IS THE EXCEPTION IN 2017
The dogma says every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.So if there is an exception;that is someone who does not need to be incorporated into the Church in 2017, then this person would have to be known.He or she would have to exist in 2017.
FOURTH CENTURY SAINT CANNOT BE AN EXCEPTION TODAY: NO LIVING EXCEPTIONS

I cannot say that every does not need to be a member of the Church in 2017 since there was an exception in the fourth century. Also who could have physically known if St Emerentiana was saved without the baptism of water? The legend has speculated with good will that she is in Heaven, without the baptism of water.Yes she is in Heaven however God could still have had her baptised after she died, as St. Francis Xavier observed in many cases.

MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL ERROR

We have a major philosophical error which was used to get rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Someone in the past or the future; a hypothetical case,who cannot be seen or known physically - is inferred to be an exception in the  present times to the ecclesiocentrism of the past.

If being saved in invincible ignorance , without the baptism of desire is a possibility, in the future, it still cannot be an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church in 2017.

This is an important point.Since now there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II.

If the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refers to hypothetical cases in the past or future then the dogma EENS is not contradicted in the present times.Then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS in the present times.Then Vatican Council II does not contradict Feeneyite EENS or the ecclesiocentrism of the past which Cardinal Ratzinger referred to in Redemptoris Missio.

'INVISIBLE-VISIBLE 'MISTAKE IN VATICAN COUNCIL CAN BE CORRECTED

The cardinals at Vatican Council II however assumed that the baptism of desire etc refer to cases in the past or future which were exceptions to EENS and this confusion is expressed in the Council.So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with EENS.However we can still assume that the baptism of desire etc are hypothetical and so they are not exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.We can be rational and factual.So we can re-interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS. I call this Vatican Council (Feeneyite).It does not consider possibilities in the past or future as being known realities in the present.It has the hermeneutic of continuity which Pope Benedict referred to while he was actually promoting a hermeneutic of rupture, with an irrational philosophy, upon which he based his new theology.-Lionel Andrades

NOSTRA  AETATE  DOLOROSA

Now, it needs to be interjected here that Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) is more than a teaching of the Church.  It is a dogma of the Faith solemnized in definitions by three popes and one ecumenical council (Florence), infallibly reaffirmed by another council (Trent), and proclaimed by other popes, councils, church doctors and saints innumerable as a solemn teaching from Jesus Christ, handed down through sacred tradition from the Apostles.  The Jesuits’ renowned Scriptural commentator, Cornelius à Lapide, described it as “the all-important dogma”; Blessed Pius IX called it “the great dogma of our holy religion”; and 19th century Bishop George Hay said it is “the very fence and barrier of the true religion.” Which is why the Church’s hidden enemies for centuries have brought their full contempt and rage to bear against this one dogma above all others as the primary obstacle to their subverting of Church teachings.  Thus, in the late 19thcentury, and again even more so in the mid-20thcentury, they mounted largescale campaigns to humiliate, stigmatize and defame two widely popular and respected Catholic theologians – the Redemptorist Father Michael Mueller and the Jesuit Father Leonard Feeney – who steadfastly defended the dogma.  The purpose was to make conspicuous examples of these priests as a warning to others who might dare to profess this solemn doctrine in like manner.

http://theeye-witness.blogspot.it/2016/01/nostra-aetate-dolorosa_24.html