Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre know that implicit desire,invincible ignorance etc were not known to us and irrelevant to the dogma?

If he did he never said it clearly.

The Archbishop said 'preach extra ecclesiam nulla salus'. He also indicated that a non Catholic can be saved in a state of grace and ignorance. (1)

He never mentioned that these cases are exceptions to the dogma or that they are known to us.So these cases do not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma. However the Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX) priests imply and assume that they do so. This is an error which can still be see on SSPX websites.

The SSPX has criticized the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney for saying, theologically , that there is no baptism of desire which can contradict the dogma. They have never said, philosophically, as an intellectual observation, that we do not know any such case, they are not visible to us. So of course it is irrelevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the literal interpretation of the defined dogma.

If Archbishop Lefebvre could see the issue philosophically his interpretation of Vatican Council II would change immediately.Since the dead who are saved cannot be seen by us there is nothing in Vatican Council II to change the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. Vatican Council II really says outside the Church there is no salvation but may be the archbishop did not notice it ?

Vatican Council II is traditional.Never  was this clealry  mentioned by the SSPX.Though at  their last Chapter (July 19,2012) they affirmed the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (like Fr.Leonard Feeney) and said that there were no exceptions.(implicit desire,invincible ignorance and a good conscience were not exceptions).

If the SSPX can now clearly state that LG 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) are accepted as possibilities known only to God but are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma, Vatican Council II can no more be cited as a break from tradition.

It will be indicated by them that we do not know anyone saved with the seeds of the Word (Dei Verbum), elements of sanctification (LG 8) and being 'good and holy' (Nostra Aetate).They do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney nor the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

It will also clarify that Archbishop Lefebvre did not say that there were known exceptions to the dogma but this was implied within the SSPX-Lionel Andrades