SSPX must clarify that the baptism of desire is always implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) District Superior Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci cannot deny that he has made an objective error. He could clarify that the baptism of desire, for us human beings, is always implicit, hypothetical, invisible, de jure and subjective. It is never explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh, defacto, objective.

He would still be affirming  the baptism of desire (implicit) and denying an explicit, visible for us baptism of desire.

 So he still holds the SSPX  position supporting the baptism of desire and the possibility of being saved in invincible ignorance .

 When the baptism of desire is implicit for him, a possibility known only to God,  then it is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is irrelevant  to the dogma.

 With implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire  neither will he be denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor contradicting the Creed 'I believe in one baptism(water) for the forgiveness of sin'.

He will be affirming  extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire. So there is no change in the doctrinal teaching of the Church. Explicit for us baptism of desire is irrational, a new doctrine and leads to a theology based on an irrationality.

So Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It means the Catholic Church's teaching on ecumenism and other religions is still the same after Vatican Council II.It is still the same according to the text of Vatican Council II.

Similalry  Ad Gentes 7 affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II. Since all salvation (UR 3, LG 16,LG 8 etc) and all condemnation (LG 14- those who know and do not enter etc) are implicit, hypothetical and known only to God.

So UR 3 and NA 2 would have to be considered implicit for us since there are no known cases in 2014.

Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci would have to clarify that  UR 3 and NA 2 are implicit for us and they do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades