Why did the Holy Office 1949 mention the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? This is a factual mistake.

Consider this statement from the Holy Office Letter (it pays to consider the entire letter):
"From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without."

Lionel:

This passage is vague.Also other passages are written in a confusing way.

Generally in the media and among Catholic liberal theologians it is interpreted to mean that the baptism of desire is explicit or us and is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was criticized for not accepting the baptism of desire as an exception.

Reason tells us that the baptism of desire is always explicit only for God and implicit ( invisible) for us. So how can implicit baptism of desire be an explicit ( defacto) exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

 Here's the article, Lionel:

http://catholicism.org/sentimental-theology.html

Lionel:

It is an excellent article. It affirms the traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
And, take note of footnote #7:7 As has been shown in other writings from St. Benedict Center, all allusions by the popes, the councils and learned doctors of the Church to this subject matter agree, that only an explicit desire for the actual Sacrament of Baptism can affect justification.

Lionel:

Yes -and this explicit desire for the actual Sacrament of Baptism is that of a catechumen who is not known to us. He is not visible to us. De facto we do not know any such case. This is a hypothetical case.

Is the Holy Office implying that a hypothetical case is a known (physically present) exception to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Brother Francis Maluf MICM and Fr.Leonard Feeney ? This would be irrational.

What is disputed is whether such desire is sufficient for salvation. We hold with many of the saints the same literal meaning of Our Lord’s words: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mk. XVI:15)

Lionel:

The baptism of desire per se is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Holy Office does not say that the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma.Why did they mention the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? It was assumed that these cases are visible and so are defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the error.

This is a break with Tradition. No other Church document implies that the baptism of desire is visible to us or is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is a factual mistake. It is a break with the defined dogma, the Catechism of Pope Pius X. It is heresy. It contradicts Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ( all need faith and baptism for salvation). It contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 ( all need to enter the Church as through a door.)
This, of course, is contrary to the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and all of his peers; hence, it is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Basel and the Council of Florence which was a continuation of it.

Lionel:

St.Thomas Aquinas affirmed the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So did St. Augustine and the saints.The St.Benedict Center was following St.Thomas Aquinas.

Has the Council of Basil said any where that there are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? No!

-Lionel Andrades