Where is the Church document before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire is known to us, it is explicit

You really put terms that are not shown in the Holy Office Letter of 1949. You are misunderstanding the sense.

 

Lionel:

If you consider Feeneyism a heresy because the Holy Office 1949 condemned it then you are saying that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong not to consider the baptism of desire an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the common charge in the media.So you are saying the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

1.Then the question now arises- is the baptism of desire visible for us ?. Do we know any case of someone saved with the baptism of desire?. Do you personally know any such person in Italy.? Do any of your friends know someone now in Heaven saved as such? No you do not know.There is no such case.

2.Then the question arises where is the Church document before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire is known to us, it is explicit. Which document says that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? None!

So for the first time in 1949 the Holy Office assumed that invisible for us baptism of desire was visible to us.It was denying the dogma with alleged 'exceptions' which are not known to us and which no Church document mention. The Holy Office was not only heretical but irrational.

Feeneyism was the official,approved  teaching of the Catholic Church before 1949.The Church Councils which defined the dogma three times, never mentioned  any exceptions.

-Lionel Andrades