I affirm Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.I am reminded of this Catechism since John Vennari has mentioned it on a video.
The difference between John Vennari and me is here:
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptised
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.-Catechism of Pope Pius X
For John Vennari and the SSPX priests 17Q refers to a visible case, seen in the flesh in the present times. So the baptism of desire becomes an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me it is an invisible case.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also interpreted 17Q with the irrationality. The baptism of desire refers to ' a practical exception' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Archbishop Lefebvre also made this mistake.
John Vennari will not be able to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he will refer to the baptism of desire as if it is a relevant exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation.
I affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS since I accept the baptism of desire as only being hypothetical, accepted in theory, speculation with good will, dejure (accepted in principle) and not defacto ( in reality).-Lionel Andrades
I affirm Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology of the Catechism of St. Pius X