You do grasp the concept that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not? Baptisms of blood and desire I would imagine are pretty rare, but most certainly possible.
Susan you could compartmentalise your thinking.
Accept the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood and compartmentalise this.Do not link it to anything i.e not to the dogma.
Then think about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and do not link it to anything, not to baptism of desire and blood. Compartmentalise it.
Now in the same way accept LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance), LG 8 ( being saved with elements of sanctification and truth), NA 2, UR 3 etc and compartmentalise it. Do not link it with anything. Just accept it.
In the same way accept AG 7 and LG 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All.
This is how it was accepted over the centuries. They did not connect one with the other.
It was the Masons, Americanists and others over a century who had been campaigning against the dogma. They wanted to get rid of it. So they linked the two. They linked being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with the dogma.
So the popes have had to respond to them. So they began referring to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire when they began talking about the dogma. Since the Americanists had made the connection.
Then in Boston the enemies of the Church had their big victory when the Holy Office 1949 accepted it. It was then included in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and the error was blatant in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846,1257).This was the new theology.
So now if you look at it compartmentalised, as separate, without any connection between the two, you can accept the baptism of desire and blood ( both are invisible for us) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( which says all need to be formal members of the Church in the present tmes).This does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Here you will be avoiding the SSPX, MICM and Vatican Curia model which connects the two.
So if asked, you could say that you accept the baptism of desire and blood and also the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they are not connected.
Can you look at this issue without the models used by the SSPX and the MICM ?