The Council of Trent only referred to the baptism of desire. It did not say that these cases were known and visible to us

You misrepresented Canon law.

It said "OR AT LEAST IN DESIRE is necessary" which means Baptism is not absolutely necessary as you think.

Trent used the exact wording "or at least in desire."

Lionel:

The Council of Trent only referred to the baptism of desire. It did not say that these cases were known and visible to us. So it did not say that they were defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.Since if they are not known to us in personal cases they cannot be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the present times for salvation.

Also no where in the Council of Trent is it said that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If it did mention this you would have been able to quote the text.Now you are unable to do so.

I accept the baptism of desire as a hypothetical case and this hypothetical case would be followed with the baptism of water.This is only a possibility. It can only be a possibility. It cannot be otherwise. It is defacto only for God.

So for me ' or at least in desire' refers to a hypothetical subject , which I accept as a possibility, and which of course does not contradict the dogma , since the Council of Trent does not say it does and since I do not know of an any such case in 2014.

-Lionel Andrades

 

You have no magisterial document (except the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is contradictory and without precedent) which says there are known exceptions to the dogma http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/you-have-no-magisterial-document-except.html