Yeah, no exceptions you say, but then you redefine "Church" and "within" and "is".
If only you spent half this kind of time and energy defending the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (instead of formally denying that dogma).
Typical modernist double talk.
Those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" corrupt the meaning of the defined EENS dogma, which is an unchangeable truth from Heaven, not subject to further interpretation.
Explicit faith, the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. Not exceptions.
I do not believe in salvation by implicit desire. That would be like saying you believe in salvation by water apart from the formula. Is that what you believe? Then don't falsely accuse me.
Modernists re-interpret defined Catholic dogma with ambiguity and subjectivism. They claim that the old and ageless formula that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be re-defined to fit the current times. A classic example, BOD adherents and other modernists claiming to be "traditionalists" say that salvation is not IN, but THROUGH the Church. In doing this, the share the same error with the liberals whom they condemn. People who are not "in" the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to the modernists the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is really salvation outside the Church.
It is simple logic that can be explained to first communicants. There is no need to color the thrice defined dogma that only Catholics go to Heaven and to be a Catholic, you must be water baptized.
You are guilty of reinterpreting the dogma it is an invention of the late 1940's and 50's.
See, like all modernists, you continually demonstrate your blatant dishonesty by accusing those who speak the truth of being guilty of what in actuality, you yourself are guilty of. That is and has always been one of the tactics of the modernists and you and the NSAAers are professionals at this tactic.
The First Vatican Council infallibly decrees that:"the meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
The above decree has been replaced by the modernist enemies of the Church with the new axiom:"Dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."
You and the rest of the NSAAers reject the infallible decree of V1 completely while embracing the new axiom of modernist invention and deception.
But wait, that's not sufficient for the modernist enemies - there's more.
The above new axiom has an additional and inseparable new axiom, the two axioms are so closely related that they are married to one another - and it goes like this:"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Between these two modernist axioms is why you, no matter how you say it, accept that there is salvation outside the Church - and you and the other NSAAers fall head over heels for the new axioms, the modernist doctrines, without the slightest regard to the decree of V1.
Between those two modernist doctrines, 1) dogma becomes something which needs interpreting, which in turn, as you and your fellow NSAAers continually demonstrate, allows NSAAers to obliterate the meaning of dogma, and 2) rewards salvation without the sacraments, without the Church and without the faith, to those presumed ignorant of the true faith.