The SSPX's Angelus Press is publishing another book with a factual error. Against the Heresies contains statements by Archbishop Lefebvre which indicate he assumed that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Unaware of the Cushingite mistake, he then interpreted Nostra Aetate 2 as referring to explicit cases, which are an exception to all needing to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
The Angelus Press has also published Is Feenyism Catholic by Francois Laisney with the same error. It is inferred that the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Why is it relevant? As usual they were following the lead given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.He thought that these cases were visible in the flesh.So they had to be exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Fr.Francois Laisney cites Tradition in which the baptism of desire is mentioned.Yet none of the sources he quotes states that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Fr.Laisney who infers that these cases are explicit in the present times.
Recently in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Suprior General of the Society of St. Pius X assumed that Nostra Aetate etc were exceptions to the traditional teaching.He was following the error of Archbishop Lefebvre on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. ("Against the Heresies",p.216)1
Sure they can be saved (hypothetically,in theory) and these cases would not be known to us (defacto, in real life). Is the founder of the SSPX implying that these cases are relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Yes he is. He is assuming that they are defacto and objective and not hypothetical and invisible for us. Other quotations indicate the same.
He was confused over the Boston Case too.He did not know that it was Cardinal Cushing who was in heresy for assuming there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.