The SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

All the followers of Father Feeney, as did Father himself, hold that Saint Thomas was in error for teaching Baptism of Desire;

Lionel:

An explicit- for- us baptism of desire is error.

 

St.Thomas Aquinas did not say that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance was a visible and known case and so was an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which he held i.e there are no exceptions.

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, accept a baptism of desire followed by a baptism of water.They cite the conditions for the baptism of desire. So they do not reject the baptism of desire.It still is invisible for us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The SSPX rejects this. Baptism of Desire is relevant in that it has been universally taught by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It is not an "exception," visible or otherwise.

Lionel:

So you are saying that the baptism of desire ( implicit for us) is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

And you agree that the SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

-Lionel Andrades