Traditionalists still assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : no canonical status for the SSPX when they are really in agreement with Vatican Council II

When Jefferey Mirus of Catholic Culture writes a report critical on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, Brother Andre Marie MICM will respond.

Jefferey Mirus will assume that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us in personal cases so it is an exception .Brother Andre Marie Prior at the St.Benedict Center,one of Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA, will defend Fr.Leonard Feeney and say historically and theologically the baptism of desire was not considered a Sacrament and so the baptism of water is also needed for those catechumens who have a genuine desire and perfect charity.

So he will accept the baptism of desire in principle as containing the baptism of water and so it is not an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.It is that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

Without the baptism of water there cannot be a catechumen saved for Brother Andre Marie. So in the case of the baptism of desire, God would provide the grace for a preacher to come and baptise the catechumen.

What Brother Andre Marie and Mr.Brian Kelly on the Catholicism.org website have not done is to use another approach . They could simply tell Jeff Mirus that for something to be an exception it has to be known.We don't know any case of the baptism of desire in 2013.

So they accept the baptism of desire as a possibility, followed with the baptism of water, and none of these cases are known to us personally in real life. So how can what we do not know be an exception?

This could be the approach also with the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX).

If there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II then the Council is in agreement with the SSPX on the subject of other religions and ecumenism.

So Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditionalists position on other religions and the SSPX does not know this and the St.Benedict Centers are not helping them to know this. If the St.Benedict Center accepts Vatican Council II and also that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation then the SSPX could use this model. Since the St.Benedict Centers affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and this is compatible with Vatican Council II.

The Sisters of St.Benedict Center, in the diocese of Worcester have canonical status. They affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, and the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are accepted in principle as possibilities. It is known that they are not explicit for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma. So Vatican Council II is in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If any one protests why are these traditonalists given canonical status when they hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney they simply explain that what does not exist cannot be an exception.They do not know any one in 2013 saved with implicit salvation which is visible for us humans.

In general, I notice on forums, Traditionalists still assume that implicit to us salvation is explicit and visible.Even if they do not accept Vatican Council II, traditionalists with the SSPX and St.Benedict Centers could agree that there is no visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and that these cases can only be accepted in principle.-Lionel Andrades