Fenton guts the dogma EENS when he starts pushing this notion that one can be "within the Church" without being a member of the Church. Suddenly, those who do not have membership, even in voto, can be considered "within" the Church and therefore saveable. See how they start with the premise that non-Catholics can be saved and then argue backwards into the EENS definitions by redefining the word "within"? Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's, "well, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". So, for Fenton, whether anyone can be saved except within the Church depends on what one means by the word "within". This is a complete novelty and was invented precisely to get non-members of the Church SAVED. So, now, no longer is profession of the Catholic faith required for salvation, no longer is the Sacrament of Baptism required for salvation, no longer is subjection to the Holy Father required for salvation. So you can be WITHIN the Church without being visibly within the Church ... as set forth in the membership criteria. So it becomes a free-for-all where pretty much anyone who believes in Jesus and the Holy Trinity can be saved. Thus Fenton sets the stage. All someone has to do is reject the "majority opinion" on explicit faith criterion and now anyone who believes in God can be within the Church ... based on Fenton's principles. So Fenton in priniciple promotes the reduction of EENS to a meaningless formula while ironically deriding those who reduce EENS to a meaningless formula. Fenton promotes the body-soul distinction of the Church while also condemning the same. He promotes Suprema Haec while condemning the principles it actually promotes (while pretending that it doesn't actually promote them). Fenton claims that V2 ecclesiology not only leaves intact but even improves Traditional ecclesiology. Fenton is the master of intellectual gymnastics performed in order to reconcile contrary principles.
So what does this do to Tridentine Catholic ecclesiology? It completely GUTS it and directly sets up Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology. This is why Fenton declared that V2 ecclesiology was not a departure but even an IMPROVEMENT to Traditional ecclesiology. It's not because, as LoT claims, that Fenton was an idiot who couldn't read and interpret the theology of Vatican II. Fenton's ecclesiology = Vatican II ecclesiology, a Frankenchurch in which all manner of non-Catholic exists within the same Church as "card-carrying" Catholics (a disparaging terms used by LoT to deride Tridentine ecclesiology). On the contrary, Tridentine ecclesiology emphasized that the Church was a VISIBLE society composed by those who met the criteria of membership. Not so for LoT and Fenton. They have created the visible-invisible Frankenchurch hybrid that's at the heart of Vatican II.
And so we are left with hundreds of years of commentators and theologians, some doctors (St. Alphonsus, for example), opining that it may indeed be possible to be joined to the Church without an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism that would, as you have noted, indicate a type of imperfect membership that at least is defensible and makes some sense.
This is the problem we have. And Lover of Truth seizes on it. He fails to recognize that nowhere does the ordinary, universal magisterium adopt such a view - I challenge him to show even the authentic magisterium supporting that view. We have a local catechism approves by Pius XI indicating BOD may be "implicit," without elaboration. Arguably supporting LoT's position . . . but only arguably and not definitive.
Trent can be read as indicating a desire being sufficient for justification, without touching the explicit/implicit issue, and we know what the Roman Catechism of Trent says - referring to the desire of a catechumen (an explicit desire) possibly availing to justification.
We have Pius XII in his allocution to midwives saying that infants do not have available to them a act of love and need baptism - which also doesn't elaborate and hence doesn't endorse LoT's view - an "act of love" would be consistent, for example, with the catechumen referenced in the Roman Catechism.
We have the statements of Pius IX in his encyclicals which talk about no one being damned for invincible ignorance of the Catholic faith and that those striving to obey God by the natural law and "if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life" "can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace" (Quanto conficiamur moerore) - which can simply be read in accordance with St. Thomas that such would receive divine inspiration as to those things necessary to be believed for salvation, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation.
Of course, I am putting the HOL aside at this point for reasons that have been discussed here.
LoT simply doesn't get that a view that one may be justified by having the minimums of the Catholic faith and an explicit desire for baptism doesn't violate any of these magisterial statements, except perhaps Piux X's approved catechism for Italy, which falsely asserts that one may have BOD while "separated from the body of the Church" and hardly can be read as definitive on this issue.
LoT doesn't get that no Catholic engages in "heresy" or even a lesser sin or crime by simply disagreeing with his and commentator/theologians STRETCHED readings of these magisterial statements. Yet he'll persist.
Thanks for your thoughts. And now the spamming will begin again, with no attempt by LoT to engage real discussion on these points.