Even if there were many cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire ( without the baptism of water) it would be irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Fact is that the Roman Martyrology lists individuals who died as catechumens, which the Church has always understood as being individuals who died without sacramental Baptism, at least to a moral certitude.  This is much a historical fact as it is a theological one.  You're free to believe (and even hope) that the One and Triune God miraculously provided sacramental Baptism to each of them but such is your theological opinion.  It has always been the "common opinion" of the theologians that there are individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism and that the Roman Martyrology would provide a visible example/exception to sacramental Baptism not only known to God but to we men, also.

Lionel:

For me the baptism of desire is implicit, invisible and not known on earth. So even if there were many cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire ( without the baptism of water) it would be irrelevant to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would not be an exception.

 

For you the baptism of desire is explicit, visible in the present times. This

is what you infer.Since you consider the baptism of desire an exception to

the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So if St.Emerentiana or some other saint according to the Roman Martyrology died and went to Heaven without the baptism of water is an implicit, invisible case in 2014. So it cannot be an exception or relevant to the dogma, Catechism and Vatican Council II  which says all need the baptism of water for salvation.These three Church documents do not state that the baptism of desire is visible in the flesh or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

Since the baptism of desire is invisible for me it does not contradict the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.This was the error of the Letter of the Holy Office which inferred that there was not implicit for us baptism of desire.

 

 

The Holy Office wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit for us and so an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.In other words there was salvation outside the Church for the Holy Office and the Archbishop and Jesuits at Boston.They made a mistake. It was a factual error.

-Lionel Andrades