The extraordinary means are known to Him alone. He will reveal all secrets when we get to Heaven.

But you claim that it's already been revealed and taught by the Church.  Which one is it?

Stubborn, multiple Popes and Catechisms and Councils have in fact taught BOD. Not to mention Encyclicals and Holy Office docuмents. That you don't want to admit this is your own issue.

Some Catechisms taught it, yes, the ones that teach it are in need of correction, no pope or council ever taught it. BODers read words in papal docuмents that the words do not say while they avert to what the words do say. This is not intended as an insult, it is just real.

Pope St. Pius V also condemned one of the propositions of the Jansenist Michael Baius which also proves denial of bod is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to be a faithful Roman Catholic, you will believe in bod.

Pope Eugene IV says: " . . . Not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and  unity of the Catholic Church."

There's a dogma, defining BOB for you as condemned.

Even Br. Dimond admits the Catechism of Trent teaches bod though he absurdly pretends the Council didn't.

They're wrong.  So you think they're wrong about pretty much everything and now think they're right abou this?

God is not constrained by any impossibility. God foresaw everything before He created the world. And therefore, He provided perfect contrition as the perfect means for all to attain to grace and sanctification who could not receive the ordinary means of justification.

You just moronically contradict yourself.  God is not contrained by impossibility but then provided this other alternative means to the means He established for those who "could not" receive the Sacrament.

The Dimonds just uploaded a new video once again showing that salvation in invincible ignorance is false, with NEW material.

Just watched it. So Br. Dimond, as is typical of his schismatic mentality, takes one theologian, this De Lorca person, mostly unheard of, and then elevates his opinion to the level of a dogmatic definition, schismatically condemning all of the FSSP, SSPX, SSPV and CMRI - all traditionalists, in a word - while De Lorca himself, good and faithful Catholic that he undoubtedly was, never did such a thing. De Lorca just argued in favor of his opinion without schismatically excommunicating the rest. Br. Dimond is not a schismatic for holding explicit faith in Christ is necessary. He is a schismatic for pretending the Catholics who disagree with him are heretics or schismatics, whereas he himself is the heretic and schismatic for that. The Church has been well aware of this issue and permitted theologians on both sides to argue it out according to which they consider is better supported by Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium and reason.

Here is a much better known Catholic theologian, Cardinal John de Lugo, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Lugo) whom St. Alphonsus for e.g. praises. "Similarly, de Lugo:

Quote The possibility of salvation for such a person [i.e., a non-Christian with supernatural, yet implicit, faith] is not ruled out by the nature of the case; moreover, such a person should not be called a non-Christian, because, even though he has not been visibly joined to the church, still, interiorly he has the virtue of habitual and actual faith in common with the church, and in the sight of God he will be reckoned with the Christians. (De virtute fidei divinae, disp. 12, no. 104, cited in Sullivan, p. 97)" https://windowlight.substack.com/p/salvation-outside-the-church-the

Sullivan argues, based on textual evidence, that Perrone helped Pius IX write Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (see p. 116). Whether or not that is so, it is clear that Pius’s statement from that encyclical, cited above, includes elements of both the Suarez/de Lugo and Perrone theories. When he, at first glance paradoxically, refers to the “virtue of divine light” possessed by some in “invincible ignorance about our most holy religion,” he is clearly referring to what the theologians called supernatural, implicit faith, an idea that by that point had a centuries long tradition and roots in Thomistic thought." Again, one can agree with Suarez and de Lugo or not, not to mention the Encyclical of Pope Pius IX which a Catholic cannot dismis, provided one does so respectfully and not disrespectfully and schismatically as do the Dimonds. The Church has permitted both schools of thought. The Dimonds are not the Church, although given their radical erroneous opinions, they behave like antipopes at times. The video above is further proof of how they condemn and excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre and all other traditionalists. Sad.