SSPX and supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney did not know all these years that the baptism of desire and blood had nothing to do with the dogma

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney did not know all these years that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,had nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since, we do not know of any case in the present times.So there are no exceptions and there cannot be an exception.

The supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney would present theology,usually counter theology, which would say there are no exceptions to the dogma. However, they still had a concept of these cases being known and visible to us in the present times.For them too these were personally, known cases.

This could be detected when they would criticise Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved with invincible ignorance) as being an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.If it was an exception, it is visible. This is what was inferred.Only personally known and visible cases can be exceptions.

This is a subtle error.Theologically there are no exceptions but empirically there are exceptions for them. This is what is inferred.

So they present theology which said the baptism of desire must be followed with the baptism of water ( and they were correct here) but never approach the subject at a simple level, "we cannot see or know any such case".

The theology was traditional but for them it was based also on the concept that these cases were visible in the present times to be relevant to the dogma.

Since there are visible and known exceptions in Vatican Council II for traditionalists in general, there are also known exceptions to the need for the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation. Jesus Christ should not necessarily be the centre of all political legislation  since some non Catholics  will allegedly be saved outside the Catholic Church ; without the baptism of water.

-Lionel Andrades
Why cannot you say that the SSPX made a doctrinal mistake ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/why-cant-you-say-that-sspx-made.html