The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that the baptism of desire is always explicit. Upon this irrationality it condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Brother Andre Marie MICM says he cannot accept the dejure defacto concept.1

Lionel;

I make the distinction between defacto-dejure, visible-invisible, explicit-implicit etc.

De facto( in fact, in reality) there are no visible cases of the baptism f desire.

De jure we can accept the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.

Objectively there are  no visible cases of the baptism of desire.

Subjectively, in faith, w can accept it.

 Explicitly there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.

Implicitly, theoretically, hypothetically, it is a possibility followed with the baptism of water.

Visibly there  are no such cases. They are invisible for us.

Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' in 2014.-2015

So where is the contradiction?

For the St.Benedict Centers, LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is visible and so LG 16 and Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according  to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

For me it is invisible and so is not an exception to the dogma.

The excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was a mistake since they did not make the explicit-implicit ,visible-invisible distinction.

 The baptism of desire is always invisible, implicit etc.

The baptism of desire is never visible, explicit, objective etc,.

So it cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Never ever.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that the baptism of desire is always explicit etc. Upon this irrationality it condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney.

-Lionel Andrades

1

At one point he recognised that there are no known exceptions to the dogma in our reality, we cannot see any one with the baptism of desire, but then again he went into a theology-mode

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/at-one-point-he-recognised-that-there.html