The theology of the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers is irrelevant.They mean well but they would obviously be going in circles.

Anonymous :
The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood. Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism.
Lionel:
The issue is that cases of the baptism of desire are not visible on earth. Those who are saved as such are in Heaven.
So they are not exceptions to all, defacto on earth, needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The theology of the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers is irrelevant.
They mean well but they would obviously be going in circles.
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions' says the American apologist John Martigioni

I think you mean "Sacramental water" baptism since it is my understanding either Feeney or his followers denied baptism by desire as taught by the Council of Trent.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.
______________________

Of course Feeney's rigorism depends on there being absolutely no way of salvation for non-Catholics save formal visible membership in the Church which is only possible via water baptism.
Baptism by desire makes the salvation of invincibly ignorant and innocent non-believing persons via extra-ordinary extra-sacramental grace possible.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.Even a little boy would know that we cannot see people in Heaven. So this has nothing to do with Catholic theology.

_________________________

Thus the denial of baptism by desire and downplaying the

council of Trent is needed to justify these doctrinal errors.
Lionel:
The Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not say that these cases are known to us in the present times or that they are exceptions to the traditonal interpretationo of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

 

 

Pope John Paul II also fell before the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/pope-john-paul-ii-also-fell-before.html

Franciscans of the Immaculate accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Cushingite version of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/franciscans-of-immaculate-accepted.html

If the Letter of the Holy Office simply referred to implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and left it at that it would be fine

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/if-letter-of-holy-office-simply.html

Sedevacantists "traditionalists in name only" share the same very mistake with the liberals Novus Ordo Catholics-Cantarella http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/sedevacantists-traditionalists-in-name.html

The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani assumed there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus-Cantarella, CathInfo forum http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/the-holy-office-1949-made-mistake.html

Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci,District Superior,SSPX makes the same error as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949: faulty reasoning on two videos

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/frpierpaolo-petruccidistrict.html