I reject an explicit baptism of desire and affirm the traditional and centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If it is not explicit it is not an exception

Matthew the responsible on the traditionalit forum CathInfo states:

4. I ask all "combatants" to remember that you're not going to convince your opponent to switch over to believe in BoD or Feeneyism. You can argue until you're blue in the face, sling around all the mud you want, and get all bent out of shape, but in the end you're still COMPLETELY WASTING YOUR TIME.

Lionel:

I believe in the baptism of desire but I do not consider it a visible to us baptism of desire. The Society of St.pius X and Matthew hold this irrationality.Reason tells us that the baptism of desire can only be invisible for us, a possibility but not a known reality.

I affirm the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I also affirm an invisible for us baptism of desire.This does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

I reject an explicit baptism of desire and affirm the traditional and centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If it is not explicit it is not an exception.

So here I am affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the baptism of desire.

Since for me all salvation in Heaven is visible only to God there is nothing mentioned in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So the 'combatants', Matthew included, are stuck with an irrationality.

The problem arose with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The  Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston inferred that the baptism of desire was visible for us and so was an exception to the dogma as interpreted over the centuries. This error has been repeated by bishops and priests .Now it is there on Cathinfo.

-Lionel Andrades
http://sspx.org/en/news-events