We have all been conditioned to think there is salvation outside the Church based on someone in the past having personally seen someone in Heaven, without the baptism of water.
But this is physically impossible. No one we know has seen someone in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church
For example Louie Verrecchio would not understand what I am saying.Since in his mind it is fixed that a person can be saved outside the Church as a possibility.He then infers that this case is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), as if it is an objetively known case.
Before the Baltimore Catechism there was only the desire for the baptism of water, by a catechuman who dies before receiving it.There was no ' baptism of desire'.
Possibly ecclesiastical masonry in Baltimore elevated 'the desire for baptism' to the same level as the baptism of water and assumed the results were the same.
Also over the centuries they could have been campaigning for 'the baptism of desire' and so the popes and saints responded with plenty of good will.Otherwise why would they refer to the desire therof when we do not cannot know of any such case.
But the bottom line is : today there is no case of the baptism of desire(BOD).Physically we cannot meet any one without the baptism of water.There are zero cases, as John Martignoni puts it.
PERSONAL DE CONDITIONING
I personally have got rid of the ecclesiastical conditioning.I know there is no salvation outside the Church . So we can do theology or theorize.As long as we know that these cases do not exist in our reality.It is speculation and good will.
We have been conditioned to think that the popes and saints who referred to 'the desiretherof' ( Council of Trent) had in mind a 'baptism' and it was personally explicit.Ecclesiastical masonry could have re-interpreted the popes and saints, going back in time.
So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also interprets 'the desirethereof' as a baptism(Baltimore Catechism) which is explicit, objectively verifiable in personal cases and is an exception to the interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
It is with this error accepted in 1949 that Vatican Council II was called and the mistake implemented in the Council.
So when reading Vatican Council II we have to de condition ourself and then the Council is traditional and rational. With the de conditioned version of Vatican Council II the political Left would have to reject Vatican Council II as 'not being open to dialogue with other religions', 'non ecumenical',not tolerant,bigoted,'pre Vatican Council II' ...-Lionel Andrades
Louie Verrecchio confusion
When our churchmen are no longer willing to proclaim the Social Kingship of Christ, not just by way of mere inference, but loudly, clearly and unambiguously such as it is expressed in the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, then there can be no doubt whatsoever that they have effectively abandoned the Divine Commission.https://akacatholic.com/aotm-debate-shea-vs-ferrara/