Traditionalists still can't accept that we do not know any case of the baptism of desire

For so many years they have been arguing theologically for and against the baptism of desire being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It's not embarrassing but just unfortunate that it was never realized that the baptism of desire was irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing thought it was relevant .So 'on April 18, 1949, Fr. Feeney was suspended from his priestly duties and Catholics were forbidden to take part in the activities of St. Benedict Center'.

Fr. Hans Kung thought it was relevant and so he concluded that the pope was wrong and so the dogma on infallibility and extra ecclesiam nulla salus was contradicted by LG 16 etc.

Fr. Francois Laisney of the Society of the St. Pius X (SSPX) thought it was relevant and has written a book on this subject Is Feeneyism Catholic? The book assumes that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the dogma.

The SSPX bishops also believe that the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma. So for them LG 16, Vatican Council II contradicts their traditional position on other religions etc.

Apologist John Salza theologically tries to defend the baptism of desire with reference to the dogma. It is relevant for him.

Sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, Dimond brothers, believe the baptism of desire is explicit and so is a contradiction of the literal interpretation of the dogma as it was known for centuries. So they reject the baptism of desire.

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J thinks that the baptism of desire is relevant and so writes in an International Theological Commission, Vatican position-paper that exclusive ecclesiocentrism is no more held in the Catholic Church.

Some traditionalists say that they accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they also accept that there are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation.

Others say they accept the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception. However they agree theologically when implicit desire along with the baptism of water can be acceptable. So the baptism of desire, which includes the baptism of water, does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma. They come to this conclusion theologically.

But if they are asked what difference does implicit desire make, explicitly, to the literal interpretation of the dogma? They don’t answer. Since we do not know any particular case does it make any difference,  if some one has or does not have implicit desire, with reference to the dogma?.They don’t answer. This question is not included in their religious formation.

They think Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradicts the dogma theologically and they will use a defacto-defacto, explicit-explicit interpretation of magisterial documents instead of a defacto-dejure, explicit- implicit interpretation.When asked who recommended an explicit-explicit, defacto-defacto interpretation, there is no answer.

So for these traditionalists the Catechism of the Catholic Church on The Necessity of Baptism N. 1257 would be saying everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation and there is no other means to eternal beatitude and ALSO some people on earth do not need the baptism of water (Defacto- defacto interpretation)

It would be rational to say in principle everyone on earth needs the baptism of water for salvation but there could be exceptions. In fact (explicitly) everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no known exceptions (This is a defacto-dejure, in principle-in fact interpretation).

The magisterium may have recognized this problem in the Church and so in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus gave us a clue. There is a reference to the terms dejure (in principle) and defacto.

So defacto we do not know any case of the baptism of desire. It is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In principle we accept the possibility of a person being saved with implicit desire in the manner chosen known only to God.-Lionel Andrades

Fr. Francois Laisney, Fr. Peter Scott like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J is saying that the Catholic Church is no more Exclusivist ecclesiocentric: SSPX priests and liberals agree that there are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/fr-francois-laisney-fr-peter-scott-like.html#links