FR.FRANCOIS LAISNEY AND FR.PETER SCOTT OF THE SSPX IMPLY THAT THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 REFERS TO VISIBLE AND KNOWN BAPTISM OF DESIRE: NO MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENT MAKES THIS CLAIM

Fr. Francois Laisney and Fr. Peter Scott imply that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to visible and known baptism of desire since only when it is known and visible  can it contradict the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

SSPX priests imply those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are explicitly known. Then they assume it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII only refers to those saved with the baptism of desire. One has to assume that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text does not say that it contradicts the dogma.

So when Fr. Francois Laisney and Fr. Peter Scott of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma they have to imply that the baptism of desire is visible and known and so would be an exception to the dogma.

Similarly when someone says Lumen Gentium 16 on invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma it must be assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible and known to us and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text of Vatican Council does not say that it contradicts the dogma.-Lionel Andrades