If by “Bergoglian Church, you mean the visible Church described above – church of Rome and diocese throughout the world in union with it - you have just denied indefectibility of the Church.  You are nothing but a neo Protestant heretic who happens to like the Traditional Mass, and every time you profess to believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church during Mass, you lie to God and to yourself.  You believe in the idea of a Church with four marks, you reject the actual Church with four marks.  That makes you a heretic, since the actual existing Church with four marks is not only an article of faith, it is an object of divine and Catholic faith.  You deny the object.

You have succuмbed to the completely diabolical inversion of calling evil good and good evil, claiming that Traditional Catholics who adhere to the Church's doctrine and Magisterium are outside the Church, whereas the Conciliars, 90%+ of whom, by their own polls, deny one Catholic dogma or another, are Catholics, including the likes of Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι.  We are "heretics" but they are not.  I know of no Traditional Catholic who knowingly and willfully denies a single dogma of the Church, whereas the Novus Ordites are in a free-for-all.

Catholic prophecy is replete with predictions that there will be an Antichurch and an Antipope and that the True Church will be "eclipsed".  What does the term "eclipse" mean?  It refers to the fact that something remains inherently visible but merely hidden from view.  Your reduction of the "Four Marks" to a guy walking around with a white cassock is the height of absurdity.  Where was the "visible hierarchy" during the Great Western Schism?  where was it when Antipopes were on the See of Peter and accepted by the entire Church?  Where was it when 97-99% of the episcopal sees were usurped by Arians?  What of not only all the Catholic mystics but also Church Fathers and Doctors and theologians who have predicted a usurpation of the papacy toward the end times?

You keep conflating the presence of some guy wearing a white cassock as the "FOUR Marks" of the Church.  I barely see one mark there, if that.

I just wish that I was as "Catholic" as Joe Biden, so that I could be saved.

You've clearly had no real training in Catholic philosophy, theology, and logic and yet posture as a theologian.  Human beings are essentially composed of soul and body.  Yet we have many people who are disembodied souls in Heaven.  Are they no longer human?  They remain essentially human, as they are essentially soul and body, even if temporarily they are not in material possession of their bodies.  This is also what visibility means for the Church.  Yes, the Church is visible, essentially, but this does not mean that the See of Peter will at all times be occupied.  This does not preclude prolonged vacancies of the Holy See, does not preclude confusion regarding where the visible Church happens to be, as during the Great Western Schism, etc.

Hopefully one day you convert to Catholicism, since extra ecclesia nullo salus.

How dare you try to prosletyze me!  Bergoglio rebukes you.

Not only has the Bergoglian Church explicitly denied EENS, Bergoglio is ANTI-EENS, rebuking and condemning those who try to convert others to the Church, declaring that schismatics can be saint martyrs, claiming at one point that even atheists can be saved.  How can you even say this with a straight face when your "Church" rejects this statement of yours out of hand?

This 5-year-old Greek Orthodox child is most certainly a member of the visible Church ... and this has been taught by the Magisterium.  This is precisely where the wheels come off LaCosaSalza's false theology.  By having been baptized, this visible Sacrament renders him a member of the Visible Church ... until such as time as he professes heresy and or schism (upon having reached the age of reason).  Until such as time as this child reaches the age of reason, he's incapable of breaking from the Church by the profession of heresy and schism.

Congratulations, though, as with your articulation of the invisible Church you have just embraced all of Vatican II.

Hmm.  It sounds to me like you are saying all the validly baptized, of whatever sect, are members of the Church (at least until the age of reason, when, despite their invincible ignorance, they are automatically separated and damnable).  Is that correct?

This 5-year-old Greek Orthodox child is most certainly a member of the visible Church ... and this has been taught by the Magisterium.  This is precisely where the wheels come off LaCosaSalza's false theology.  By having been baptized, this visible Sacrament renders him a member of the Visible Church ... until such as time as he professes heresy and or schism (upon having reached the age of reason).  Until such as time as this child reaches the age of reason, he's incapable of breaking from the Church by the profession of heresy and schism.

Congratulations, though, as with your articulation of the invisible Church you have just embraced all of Vatican II.

As Monsignor Fenton clearly details, Pius XII rejected the notion of an invisible Church that is not co-extensive with the visible Catholic Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine clearly laid out the criteria for belonging to the Visible Church.

Communion in the Sacraments, profession of the true faith, and submission to the Holy See.  This 5-year-old has been joined to the visible Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.  While he does not actively profess the faith or submission to the Holy See, these are there through the infused virtues of faith and charity.  While these are essentially visible things, they can be there virtually or by habit, even if not always actively manifested.  This is akin to my example before of human beings being essentially soul and body, even while they are in Heaven (currently) without happening to have an actual body.  And the same thing applies to the visibility of the Church.  While the Church and the hierarchy are essentially visible, this does not preclude that for a time the See might be vacant or that there may be confusion about where the actual hierarchy are (such as during the Great Western Schism).

You are conflating Rahner’s visible/invisible distinction with the Catholic distinction between body/soul.

They are not the same thing.

The difference between the two is that for Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity,” sanctifying grace is either not required or unavoidably ubiquitous, whereas the body/soul distinction is predicated upon possession of sanctifying grace.

You are conflating Rahner’s visible/invisible distinction with the Catholic distinction between body/soul.

They are not the same thing.

The difference between the two is that for Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity,” sanctifying grace is either not required or unavoidably ubiquitous, whereas the body/soul distinction is predicated upon possession of sanctifying grace.

You're completely wrong about Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity", as Rahner said no such thing.  Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity" was, alas, no different than Archbishop Lefebvre's articulation of "Baptism of Desire".

Msgr. Fenton clearly details the problem with not having the soul of the Church being co-extensive with the Body of the Church.  Once you have a soul that extends outside the Body, then those who belong to the "soul" of the Church (but not the Body) are therefore united invisibly to the Church.

1) Can you provide magisterial sources declaring schismatic infants are members of the visible Church?

2) Can you provide magisterial sources declaring schismatic children forfeit grace at the age of reason?

1) 


Council of Trent,

Session VII


http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm


CANON XIII

If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.

2)


Satis Cognitum
On the Unity of the Church
Pope Leo XIII - 1896


https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm

Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.

I'll try to find sources for these, but it's basic theology.  Who someone has been baptized by doesn't particularly matter.  I can be baptized by some atheist and that still makes me a member of the Church.  Simply because I'm baptized by some Orthodox priest doesn't make me Orthodox.  Valid Baptism if valid Baptism and it makes someone an infant a member of the Church, regardless of the minister who conferred it.  This is Salza's error of making membership in the Church purely material.  So the infant who's baptized by an Orthodox priest is in no different condition than an infant who's baptized by a Catholic priest.  Neither one of them actively professes the Catholic faith yet ... having not yet reached the age of reason.  But their supernatural virtue of faith is infused.  But once they reach the age of reason, profession of the Catholic faith and submission to the Holy See are additional requirements for membership in the Church.  To say otherwise would have it that no unbaptized infant would be a member of the Church.

Concedo.  Should have had more coffee before I began outmaneuvering myself.  It occurred to me that “joined to the Church (soul)” is not the same as “member” (body), and therefore I would not expect to find a docuмent declaring what I was seeking (ie., You can’t be a “member” of the soul of the Church).  Thanks.

PS: But I’d still be interested in seeing something which states schismatic infants forfeit grace at the age of reason (since invincible ignorance would seem to make the morally culpable sin by which such a forfeiture transpired impossible), which would be necessary for them to avoid salvation.