Here's what I concluded with my discussion with Ambrose:

There's no salvation outside the Church but when one is outside and desires to be inside he isn't really outside but inside even though he's outside.

Ambrose affirmed this is Church teaching.

Is there really anything of substance that can be said at this point?  :confused1:

Yes, this contradictory (nonsensical) logic is what comes of trying to reconcile Suprema Haec with Traditional Catholic teaching.  Yes, there's no salvation outside the Church [...except when there is].  Yes, the Church is visible and not invisible, and no one can be part of the invisible Church only without also being part of the visible, but one can be invisibly part of the visible Church without being part of the invisible part of the Church.  It just causes one's head to spin and really does turn the Church's Traditional teaching on EENS and Traditional Catholic ecclesiology into a joke.

And then you have the concept in Suprema Haec about no one can be saved who KNOWS the Church to be the True Church and yet REFUSES to enter it.

So, how many people are thereby (with this definition) excluded from the Church, maybe 4 or 5?

If everyone knew that the Catholic Church is the ONLY true Church, established by God Himself as the only means of salvation for humankind, then it follows that virtually no one would refuse to enter it.  :rolleyes: It does not pass the logic test. It is simply absurd what they say. Is there any human being out there that in the moment of death don't have the desire to be saved? I think not. That does not mean they will be saved. Christ Lord was explicitly clear about this. They cannot be saved, simply because they are not members of the Catholic Church, therefore not members of the Mystical Body of Christ, (Christ and the Church are one and only Christ goes to Heaven), therefore they are unable to enter Heaven on account of Original and actual sins.

BOD adherents believe there is a last minute shortcut to the Church Triumphant without actually being part of the Church militant. They think that one can be interiorly united to the Church and all sacraments can be taken invisibly. They concede that sure, it is "better" to a visible member of the Church, but you can also be an invisible member and be saved. That is to say that Baptism is optional which is infallibly condemned. Because of this, the clever modernists twisted the concept of BOD, so as not to remove completely the necessity of Baptism from the picture, but simply making it subjective, ambiguous, and ultimately invisible.

Not only that, roscoe, but once you subjectivize everything, the absurd conclusion follows that the Catholic Church is an impediment to salvation rather than a "help".

You might have a Protestant who just goes to church every few weeks, when he feels like it.  Since he's not aware of any obligation to go to church, he commits no sin.  But a Catholic misses Mass once and he's in a state of mortal sin.  Protestants can divorce and remarry 20 times and not be in sin, but a Catholic enters a perpetual state of sin in doing it once.  Lest the BoDers object, neither of these examples has to do with following the natural law.